Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Brentford Gas Bill and South Shields Gas Bill,

Standing Order of 19th November, 1918, relating to Bills suspended in Session 1918 read:

Brentford Gas Bill, read the first and second time, and (having been reported and considered in Session 1918) ordered to be read the third time.

South Shields Gas Bill, read the first and second time, and (having been reported and considered in Session 1918) ordered to be read the third time.

SUPREME COURT (PRIZE, Etc., DEPOSIT ACCOUNT, 1917–18).

Copy ordered, "of Account of the Receipts and Payments of the Assistant Paymaster-General for Supreme Court business on behalf of the Admiralty Division in Prize for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1918, and for the period 4th day of August, 1914, to 31st day of March, 1918, together with Copy of the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

HEALTH AUTHORITIES.

Address for "Return of the various Government Departments and classes of public authorities who at present administer Health services, together with particulars, as far as possible, of the scope and limits of their functions."—[Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

GRANTS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has as yet allocated to the various local authorities their proportion of the advances that will be made to supply the house shortage; and, if not, what Department is considering the needs of the various boroughs and urban district councils?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The various local authorities have already been asked by the Local Government Board to ascertain the need for additional houses in their districts, and the majority of them have taken steps to do so. It will be one of the first duties of the Housing Commissioners proposed to be appointed by the Local Government Board to co-operate with the local authorities in this matter and to satisfy themselves as to the needs of their areas.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have all the local authorities made demands for houses in excess of their absolute needs in order to ensure getting their exact quota?

Major ASTOR: No. But the demands are being carefully scrutinised, and powers have been taken to stimulate the erection of houses.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Lieutenant-Colonel HERBERT: 40.
asked the first Commissioner of Works whether the Government proposes to compete with private enterprise in building, and to what extent?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): This is a question, of policy, and is not for my Department to settle. It should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

NOTICES TO QUIT.

Mr. ROWLANDS: 50
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether the attention of the Government has been called to the numerous notices which have been served on tenants to give up possession of the houses they occupy unless they are pre-
pared to buy the houses on the terms fixed by the landlords; and if the Government proposes to take any action in view of the impossibility of the tenants being able to find other houses;
(2) Whether the Government intends to introduce a Bill, as promised in the last Parliament, to give relief to leaseholders who have been called upon to carry out repairs and dilapidations under the difficult circumstances created by the War?

Sir ALFRED YEO: 63.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the present, grave shortage of houses and the growing practice of landlords and purchasers of existing house property to evict the tenants of houses of above £35 per annum rateable value, he will consider the advisability of at once taking steps to pass legislation to either raise the annual rateable value entitled to protection under the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Acts, 1915and 1918, and, at the same time, to take action to accelerate the provision of new houses, or will he consider the advisability of bringing in some protective measure in order to prevent these people being turned out of their houses?

Lieutenant-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: 82.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to take steps to cheek the prevalent and increasing practice of owners of small houses selling these houses over the heads of the tenants, and especially to obviate tenants of several years' standing being forcibly turned out of their homes?

Mr. BONAR LAW: This question is receiving immediate consideration by the Home Affairs Committee, and I hope to make a statement very shortly.

Mr. ROWLANDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great number of these people have received notice to quit, and that it will be impossible for them at the present time, however they try, to obtain houses to go into, and they will otherwise have to be protected by the process of the law?

Sir A. YEO: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am fully alive to the importance of this subject, and the Government will do everything they can to meet it sympathetically.

IRELAND.

Mr. LYNN: 57.
asked whether the housing scheme referred to in the King's Speech will apply to Ireland?

Major O'NEILL: 61.
asked whether the forthcoming Housing Bill will apply to Ireland; and, if not, what steps the Government propose to take to deal with the question of housing in Ireland?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. A. Samuels): Housing proposals on similar lines as those contained in the English Bill are at the present moment under the consideration of the Government.

Major O'NEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the housing scheme will apply to Ireland pari passu with the advantages which will be given to England under the housing scheme?

Mr. SAMUELS: I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to await the proposals, which I think will be quite satisfactory.

Major O'NEILL: 66.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Housing Bill will not apply to Ireland, he will state the intentions of the Government as to the participation of Ireland in the other items of social and remedial legislation adumbrated in the Speech from the Throne?

Captain REDMOND: 67.
asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to make a statement regarding the questions of housing, reconstruction, and public health in Ireland; whether special legislation is to be introduced dealing with these subjects; and, if so, when such legislation will be introduced?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is the intention of the Government that legislation corresponding with the social and remedial measures for Great Britain shall be undertaken for Ireland, and the method of doing this is being considered.

Major O'NEILL: As regards time, will the right hon. Gentleman say Ireland will not be placed at a disadvantage?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid I cannot add anything to what I have said. I am sure my hon. Friend would not desire that the reforms should not be taken merely because it is not possible to consider them simultaneously with those of Ireland.

Mr. DEVLIN: Why was it not possible to consider these matters in Ireland at the time they were considered in England?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps the hon. Member is unaware of the fact that the conditions in Ireland are slightly different from those in England.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the Irish people want to manage these things themselves?

Captain REDMOND: Will the question of reconstruction in Ireland be decided by this House, by the Irish people, or by the Kildare Street Club?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It will be decided in the usual way by the Government with the sanction of Parliament.

Mr DEVLIN: From whom will the Government take advice in the adjustment of this question?

Mr. BONAR LAW: From those who are, in the opinion of the Government, most competent to advise them.

Mr. DEVLIN: Are those whom the Government consider most competent to give advice the Kildare Street Club of landlords?

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY FARES.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now set: his way to recommend the abolition of the 50 per cent. excess railway fares imposed during the War or any reduction thereof?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): I am afraid I cannot add to the reply given on this subject on Thursday last to the hon. and gallant Member for the Finchley Division of Middlesex.

Mr. FRANCE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if, in the absence of any reduction of the fares, he can recommend a 50 per cent. increase in the accommodation?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid I can add nothing to my answer.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Has it not been already decided that these rates should be kept in force for the next two years?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Was not a promise given that the 50 per cent. should be taken off, and is not that promise to be redeemed?

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY.

Mr. ROSE: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the date on which the Government proposals for the establishment of national superpower stations for the generation of electricity will be placed before the House; whether in the formulation of those proposals the objection of the municipalities and others to anything like capitalist ownership of these super-power stations will be borne in mind; and whether consideration will also be given to the need for their protection against combinations to keep up the price of coal?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I hope that it will be possible to introduce a Bill dealing with the reorganisation of electric power supply at an early date. Full consideration is being given to the question of ownership, but I do not think that provisions relating to the price of coal can be included in such a measure.

Oral Answers to Questions — TIMBER CONTROL.

Mr. RAPER: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will cake steps to see that when the Government timber, control is abolished the officials of the Timber Supply Department will respect the information they have acquired, and not use it in business competition?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The position of temporary officers of the Timber Supply Department does not differ from that of similar officers in other Government Departments, all of whom are subject to the Official Secrets Act, and I have no reason to anticipate any violation of secrecy. The publicity given to the matter by my hon. Friend's question will emphasise the necessity of a strict observance of their undertaking.

Oral Answers to Questions — DARTFORD TRAMWAY ACCIDENT.

Mr. ROWLANDS: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the tramway accident on East Hill, Dartford, on
Wednesday, 5th February; and, if so, is he having an investigation made into the cause of the accident?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, Sir. The circumstances of this accident are to be investigated.

Mr. ROWLANDS: Will inquiry be made as to the observance of the conditions laid down as to the way with which the tram is to be worked on account of the steepness of the hill?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN TRAVELLING FACILITIES.

Mr. DENISON-PENDER: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the congestion of passengers on suburban trains and the consequent discomfort to the workers travelling home after their day's work; and, if so, whether he can make any statement as to what steps he proposes to take to improve matters?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware of the congestion on suburban passenger trains, but I am afraid that, owing to the exceptional conditions at present existing, an immediate remedy for the inconvenience caused by overcrowding on those trains is very difficult, to provide.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN TRAVELLING FACILITIES.

Mr. GILBERT: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of the Railway Executive Committee to re-open any or all of the suburban railway stations in London and district during the War; if he is aware of the inconvenience caused to the travelling public by the continued closing of these stations; and can he make any statement on the subject?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The railway companies concerned are fully alive to the desirability of taking steps in the direction indicated so soon as may be practicable, but I fear that the conditions of transport arising out of the War are not yet sufficiently normal to permit of any general re-opening of the closed suburban stations.
I am, however, sending a copy of my hon. Friend's question to the Railway Executive Committee, asking them to consider if anything can be done in the matter.

Mr. GILBERT: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware of the great increase of traffic in London on tramways and omnibuses during the last few months; is he aware of the great shortage of both trams and omnibuses during the crush hours of morning and evening at the various London termini; and can his Department do anything, by helping to obtain the necessary men from the Army and giving priority to the tram and omnibus authorities to obtain rolling stock and repairs, to increase and facilitate increased traffic accommodation for the people in London and the suburbs; and
(2) whether his attention has been called to the dangerous overcrowding at certain hours of the tube trains and stations in London and districts; if he proposes to take any action in order to reduce this danger to the travelling public; and can he arrange with the tube companies to run more or longer trains during the crush hours, and also help them to obtain both men from the Army and material for rolling stock from the manufacturers in order to at once improve travelling facilities on these lines?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on Thursday last to the right hon. Member for South Hammersmith, of which I am sending him a copy. Men are now being released from the Army and material is becoming available, but some time must necessarily elapse before arrears can be overtaken both as regards trams and omnibuses and as regards the tube railways.

Oral Answers to Questions — WHISKY SUPPLIES.

Major NEWMAN: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the danger to health caused by the inability of the public to obtain whisky other than in very small quantities over the bar of licensed premises; how much whisky is at present in bond and available for immediate consumption; and will he state whether the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) are responsible for withholding an adequate supply from the public?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): I have been asked to reply. Figures showing the amount of whisky in bond, as apart from other spirits, are not at present available. The question of releasing further supplies of spirits from bond is now before the War Cabinet. The responsibility for withholding or granting such supplies rusts with the War Cabinet and not with the Central Control Board of Liquor Traffic.

Major NEWMAN: Were not 4,500,000 gallons of whisky exported from this country last year?

Mr. G. TERRELL: Were not the figures available in the last Parliament? Why cannot they be stated now?

Mr. McCURDY: If the hon. Member desires that figures showing the amount of whisky, apart from other spirits, be furnished I will make inquiry.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Have we not had practically the same reply on every occasion the question has been raised? Will steps be taken to increase the supply to the public?

Major NEWMAN: Who answers for the War Cabinet?

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the War Cabinet still in existence?

Mr. McCURDY: I have no authority to speak for the War Cabinet.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH AND ITALIAN WINES.

Major NEWMAN: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the inconvenience and hardship caused to the middle classes by the restricted supply and profiteering prices charged for French and Italian light wines; whether this country is overstocked at the moment with supplies of meat and pork, whereas a shortage of meat still exists in the two countries named and in allied countries adjacent; and whether shipments of meat can be exchanged for shipments of light wines with mutual advantage?

Mr. McCURDY: I have been asked to reply. I regret the inconvenience and hardship to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. Unfortunately, we are not overstocked with supplies of either meat.
or pork, so that the proposal to exchange shipments of meat for shipments of light wines is not at present practicable.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE WITH TURKEY.

Mr. GILBERT: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any priority or facilities have been given to any Manchester firms for exporting goods to Constantinople; if so, to how many firms or companies such priority has been given and the reason why; and is he aware that his Department inform other merchants who wish to ship goods to this market that the port is closed for imports for some time and they are refused a, licence to export?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: A General Licence has been issued permitting the resumption of trade with Turkey, and goods may now be exported provided the necessary export licences are obtained from the War Trade Department in the usual way. Pending the issue of the General Licence special authority was given in one case recommended by the British authorities at Constantinople.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAPER SUPPLY.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade why the stocks of paper and boards in Government factories are being held up; and in view of the present high cost of these materials, will he consider the advisability of placing all stocks of paper and boards on the, market at once irrespective of whether or not a loss to the Government is thereby occasioned?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My right hon. Friend has no control over stocks of paper and boards in Government factories, and I can only refer the hon. Member to the Departments concerned.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What Department has control of these materials?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think the hon. Member might put the question to the Ministry of Munitions or the War Office.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Am I to put a question down to both Departments?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot advise the hon. and gallant Member.

Sir F. HALL: Is not the Paper Controller under the Board of Trade?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Paper Controller is connected with the Board of Trade, but the paper in Government factories is not under his control.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

OFFICERS' PASSAGE CHARGES.

Colonel YATE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for India what measures are being taken to reduce the high rates of passage money now charged for berths on passenger steamers between India and England, in view of the very grave hardships that will otherwise be incurred by officers coming home on leave from India?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): This is a matter that has been receiving the anxious consideration of the Government of India and myself. I am now in consultation with the Ministry of Shipping—by whom the fares are fixed—as to whether under present conditions any reduction, in passenger fares is possible.

Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when we may expect a reply from the Ministry of Shipping?

Mr. MONTAGU: As soon as I am in a position to give an answer, I will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member.

Colonel YATE: I will put another question down.

ROWLATT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS.

Colonel YATE: 16.
asked the Secretary for India whether the recommendations of the Rowlatt Committee have yet been carried into effect by the Government of India; and, if not, what steps are being taken to bring in the legislation required in Chapter XVII. of the Report?

Mr. MONTAGU: Bills giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee are before the Imperial Legislative Council.

Colonel YATE: Will the proposed legislation be passed before the present. Regulations come to an end?

Mr. MONTAGU: That was the object of the appointment of the Committee.

GERMANS (REPATRIATION).

Colonel YATE: 17.
asked the Secretary far India what steps are being taken by
the Government of India for the repatriation of all Germans interned in India and the exclusion of Germans from India in the future?

Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India have in contemplation the transfer out of India of all enemy persons interned and uninterned, subject to exceptions for cogent reasons. Further, they already possess adequate statutory powers enabling them to exclude or expel aliens at their discretion.

Colonel YATE: Will these powers be put in force?

Mr. MONTAGU: Presumably the Government of India will adopt the same policy as the home Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does that mean that the British-born wives of Germans will also be expelled from India?

Mr. MONTAGU: It was precisely because of cases of that kind I said it was "subject to exceptions for cogent reasons."

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the Government of India depend on home Government action, may I ask when the home Government will take action in this matter?

Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am not the person to answer that question.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I thought you might help it on.

INDIAN ARMY (OFFICERS' PAY).

Viscount WOLMER: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for India what advances in the rates of pay have been made to second-lieutenants, lieutenants, captains, majors, lieutenant-colonels, and colonels, in the Indian Army since the outbreak of war?

Mr. MONTAGU: The pay of officers of the Indian Army has been indirectly increased during the War by the following measures:
(1) Accelerated promotion up to Major, carrying pay of rank from 1st September,. 1916.
(2) Children's allowances from 1st October, 1917, for officers up to Captain.
533
(3) Acting rank up to that of Lieutenant-Colonel with pay for officers temporarily holding higher appointments.
(4) In addition, the ordinary leave pay of Indian Army officers has been considerably improved, as also the leave pay for the first nine months of officers invalided from field service.
(5) No general increase in the rates of pay of officers of the Indian Army has so far been granted, but the Government of India are considering the extension to them of the bonus in creases of pay recently granted by His Majesty's Government to officers of the British Regular Army for the period during which armies of occupation may be necessary.

Viscount WOLMER: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Government in paying officers of the Indian Army have cancelled the rate of exchange compensation allowance which had previously always been admitted; and, if so, what is the reason for this action?

Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. As stated, in my reply to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton on the 23rd October last, the instructions were issued by the Government of India under the standing orders relating to this allowance, which falls as the exchange value of the rupee rises.

Viscount WOLMER: Is not the effect of this substantially to reduce the pay of officers in the Indian Army?

Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think so. The exchange compensation allowance has has been reduced as the rupee rose from 1s. 4d. to 1s. 6d.

Colonel YATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no officer in the Indian Army who can afford to remit money homo—he cannot live on it as it is—and is it not therefore a reduction?

Mr. MONTAGU: If my hon. and gallant Friend will read the answer I gave last October, that will give the actual effect upon the pay of an officer of this arrangement. It does not reduce it.

Viscount WOLMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of feeling about this in the Indian Army?

Mr. MONTAGU: Yes; I am aware of that. I think it arises from a lack of appreciation of the effect.

HOLLAND INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION.

Sir J. D. REES: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can give the House any information as to the notion the Government of India proposes to take upon the Report of the Holland Industrial Commission?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have agreed to the appointment for the time being of Sir Thomas Holland, the President of the Commission, as the industrial adviser to the Government of India. But as regards the detailed recommendations of the Commission, I am awaiting the considered opinion of the Government of India and Local Governments.

MILL STRIKE (BOMBAY).

Sir J. D. REES: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the mill strike in Bombay has been brought to a satisfactory conclusion; and whether he has any information, to give the House regarding the riots by which it was accompanied?

Mr. MONTAGU: Through the intervention of the Governor a settlement of the Bombay mill strike was come to on 22nd January, and the men returned to work. Sir G. Lloyd has since reported that some mills had again suspended work, though on the 10th February all mills were reported to be working. Subsequently there seems to have been some trouble in connection with the payment of bonus. The presence of cholera is said to be making the workers restless and anxious to return to their villages. During the strike there were sporadic riots, accompanied by shop looting and intimidation, in the first few days of the strike. These were kept within bounds by tactful management of the police and show of military force The Governor reports that though nearly 200,000 strikers were demonstrating in the streets for some days and attempting violence, law and order were preserved at the cost of only severe lives.

Sir J. D. REES: May the House understand that Sir George Lloyd, who succeeded to this situation on his first arriving, dealt with it with no little tact and firmness?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am sure the House would wish to express their sympathy with the Governor in being confronted with a very difficult situation immediately on taking office and to congratulate him on the steps he took.

Mr. WATERSON: Is it not a fact that the military intervened before the riots took place?

Mr. MONTAGU: No, Sir. So far as I am aware, there was no action by the military until it was absolutely necessary to preserve order. The success which attended their efforts seems to show there was no unnecessary interference.

NEW INDUSTRIES.

Sir J. D. REES: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether Lord Morley's dispatch of 1909 expresses the present policy of His Majesty's Government and of the Government of India in regard to the action of the State in respect of the introduction of new industries into India?

Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer my hon. Friend to Chapter 11 of the Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms, where the policy of the Government as regards Indian industries is dealt with. The Viceroy and I have there expressed our belief that on all grounds a forward policy in industrial development is urgently called for, and that if the resources of the country are to be developed, the Government must take action.

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS.

Sir J. D. REES: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information as to the date on which the Bill dealing with reforms in Indian administration will be introduced?

Mr. MONTAGU: I hope this Session. But the precise date depends largely on the time when the Government receive the Reports from the Committees which are now investigating certain questions connected with the proposed reforms. I can assure my hon. Friend that no avoidable delay will be allowed to occur in the introduction of the Bill.

Mr. WATERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the principle of self-determination will be given to India when this reform is brought about?

Mr. MONTAGU: The policy on which the Bill will be founded is the policy of the 20th August, 1917, as announced in this House.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to lay the Reports of the Committees on the Table of the House before he brings in the Bill?

Mr. MONTAGU: I hope to give the House all the information they require. It is absolutely essential that they should have these Reports.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to have these Reports—during next month?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am informed that the two Committees are making progress. I hope to receive their Reports within the next two months, but I cannot say the precise date.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That will be too late for legislation this year.

Mr. MONTAGU: Oh, no!

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE CONFERENCE.

ALBANIA.

Major HILLS: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the State of Albania is represented at the Peace Conference; and if so, by whom?

The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): Albania, not having been a belligerent, and no formally constituted Government for the whole country having been recognised, the question of official Albanian representation at the Peace Conference could not arise. Committees of the Conference on territorial questions have, however, been given discretionary powers to hear any interested parties representing disputed territories, and there is no reason to doubt that under this arrangement certain prominent and representative Albanians at present in Paris will have full opportunity to state their case.

Viscount WOLMER: Is it not a fact that this country recognised Albania as a friendly State when war broke out?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would ask my Noble Friend to give me notice of any further question on the subject.

INDEMNITIES.

Mr. DOYLE: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether any question has been raised at the Peace Conference of not calling upon Germany or her associates to pay the Allied countries the cost of the war, or of not imposing heavy indemnities; whether the Conference has eliminated any such intentions; and whether, in view of the pledges given by him, he is prepared to make any statement on the subject?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I can add nothing to the answer which I gave to similar questions on this subject and to what the Prime Minister said in debate on Wednesday last.

Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Is the Government prepared to consider a report of financiers outside the House who are ready to show that Germany can pay very large sums?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend may rest assured that the Government are leaving; no inquiry out of account.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will lay upon the Table of this House, when received, the Report of the Inter-Allied Commission now inquiring into the financial resources of Germany?

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir JOHN HOPE: 65.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will lay before Parliament the Report of the Commission now considering the indemnities to be exacted from enemy countries before, the actual demands far the indemnities have been presented to the enemy countries?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As the Commission is still sitting, I am not in a position to state whether the Report, will be made public.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: In view of the fact that it is generally understood that this House will have no opportunity of doing anything but accepting or ratifying this Treaty, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the importance of giving it an opportunity of considering what may be one of its most important terms before it is too late?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite realise the importance of that, and that as far as possible the House should be acquainted with what is going on.

Colonel YATE: 64.
asked whether the Government will lay before Parliament the terms of reference to the Committee which has been appointed in Paris to estimate the amount of the indemnity to be claimed from Germany?

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: 68.
asked the terms of reference to Mr. Hughes, Lord Cunliffe, and Lord Sumner regarding the indemnity to be paid by Germany?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer given by me on 13th February, which was, I think, clear and definite.

COMMISSIONS (REPORTS).

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: 70.
asked the Prime Minister whether, before the Peace Conference promulgates its conclusions as a whole, he can arrange for the publication of the Reports of the Commissions sitting to consider delegated subjects so as to test public sentiment in advance in this and other Allied countries?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it would be practicable to adopt the course suggested by my hon. Friend, but the Government fully recognise the necessity of the House and the country being kept in touch with proceedings of the Conference, and to as great an extent as is possible this will be done.

Mr. BILLING: Is a verbatim report of every word uttered by the various representatives at the Conference being kept, and is it proposed to publish it?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope not.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMISTICE TERMS.

OCCUPATION OR GERMAN TOWNS.

Colonel GRETTON: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any arrangements have been male for the payment by the German Government of contributions to the cost of the Armies of the Allies and the United States of America now in occupation of German territory, or any part of the Armies; and, if so, whether any payments have been made?

Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I have been asked to answer this question. The cost of maintenance of the Armies of the Allies.
occupying the Rhineland is recoverable from the German Government under Clause 9 of the Armistice terms. The basis of charge is under consideration by the Allied Governments acting in concert. Cash is being supplied by the German Government for the current needs of the occupying troops.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

CULTIVATED LAND (WYCH CROSS, SUSSEX).

Mr. CROOKS: 26.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether about 30 acres of land near Wych Cross, Sussex, has been cultvated by men of the Royal Field Artillery stationed in the vicinity; that the land has been ploughed and manured for two years and crops have been grown; that during the past few months some hundreds of loads of manure have been carted from the camp to this land; whether this manure has now been sold and that the intention is to allow the land to return to its pre-war useless condition; and whether, in view of the fact that the land in question is administered by the Ashdown Forest Conservators, an inquiry will be made into the matter with a view to this land being put to proper use?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): The Board have no information on the subject, but inquiries are being made.

KAINIT.

Captain Sir BEVILLE STANIER: 27.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Government has yet been able to arrange for the importation of any kainit for agricultural purposes from the potash deposits in Alsace; and if he is pushing for delivery of this valuable manure which is now urgently required for this year's crops?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No arrangements have been made by the Government for the export of kainit from Alsace. The Government is at present conferring with the French Ministry of Agriculture on the subject.

ALLOTMENT HOLDERS' TENURE.

Mr. DENISON-PENDER: 30.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of
Agriculture whether he as aware that alarm exists among allotment holders as to their length of tenure of the land; and whether he can make any statement of the intentions of His Majesty's Government in reference thereto?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The Board recognise the anxiety of allotment holders on this subject, and they have recently issued a Memorandum to horticultural sub-committees with reference thereto. I will send a copy to my hon. Friend.

Mr. DENISON-PENDER: Has that Memorandum been sent to the Press?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am not sure, but I will make inquiries.

Sir F. HALL: Was it not agreed that these allotment-holders should retain possession for two years after the signing of peace, and are they put in that position or are they not?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes, that is the position. As regards land acquired by the Board under the Defence of the Realm Act and the Corn Production (Amendment) Act, the Board intend to retain possession of land taken for allotments for a period of two years from the end of the War, unless they are satisfied that the land is urgently required for building or other special purposes, or, secondly, where the compensation payable for the land would be in excess of the value of the produce of the land.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Is that to apply to all allotment-holders, whether they have neglected their land instead of cultivating it?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No; there are powers to prevent the neglect of land. It will not apply in such cases.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What steps will the Board take to see if the land is urgently wanted for building when it is taken from these men?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: We shall be guided by the requests put forward by local authorities or otherwise where there is an obvious need.

Lieut.-Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the Board guarantee allotments elsewhere if they have to be surrendered for this purpose?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: So far as possible, we should endeavour to get other land; but, of course, it may not be possible.

Mr. BILLING: Will compensation be paid where other land is not obtainable? There are many cases where—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not make statements.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY MARES.

Captain Sir B. STANIER: 28.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether half-legged mares are now being issued to farmers; and how many are now out, and how many there are ready to go out?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Surplus Army mares of light-draught types are being issued to farmers and others for breeding purposes on prescribed conditions. Sixty-eight of light-draught type have been allotted to agricultural executive committees for issue. Twenty others of light-draught type have been selected as suitable and will be issued at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — OCCUPATION OF GOVERNMENT PREMISES (KINGSWAY).

Viscount WOLMER: 41.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether the Government propose to continue after the declaration of peace in occupation of any of the premises now occupied by them in Kingsway, and, if so, which?

Sir ALFRED MOND: I am unable to say whether these premises now occupied by Government Staffs will be continued after peace is concluded, as this will depend on the size of the staffs maintained by the Departments concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — TYPEWRITING MACHINES.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 37.
asked the Minister of Munitions whether, in view of the general shortage of typewriting machines, he will take steps to put on offer to the public any machines in the possession of the Government in excess of their requirements?

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): The Stationery Office is still purchasing supplies of typewriters to meet the demands of the public service. The stock in hand is too small to admit of an offer to the public of any machines in the possession of the Government should such a policy be contemplated.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITIONS.

LAND AND BUILDINGS (DISPOSAL).

Major BARNES: 35.
asked the Minister of Munitions whether, in view of paragraph 20 of the Fourth Report, of Session 1918, from the Select Committee on National Expenditure, it is proposed to make full use of the Land Valuation Department of the Board of Inland Revenue in the disposal of lands and buildings by the Ministry of Munitions?

The DEPUTY MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The disposal of lands, buildings and factories will be carried out through the Lands Directorate which acts for the War Department, the Ministry of Munitions and the Air Ministry. The Lands Directorate will avail themselves of any assistance which the Land Valuation Department of the Board of Inland Revenue may be in a position to offer.

ARMAMENT FIRMS (CASH SETTLEMENTS).

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: 36.
asked the Minister of Munitions if he will state the names of the armament firms with whom cash settlements have been made on account of contracts closed in consequence of the Armistice, and the amounts of such cash settlements?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Hope): The basis upon which contracts will be terminated has been agreed in most instances with the armament firms, but cash settlements have not yet been effected as the exact amount payable is dependent upon the preparation of inventories and accountancy investigations to ascertain the Ministry's liability at the time the contractors ceased munitions work.

STATE FACTORIES AND MATERIAL.

Mr. ROSE: 38.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions what was the total estimated cost or value
of the State factories and other buildings and their equipment at or about the date of the Armistice; what at this same date was the estimated cost or value of the stocks of materials, machinery, vehicles, and other commodities in the possession of the Ministry; and how much of this property has been sold down to the present date?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The estimated cost of National Factories and Royal Ordnance Factories, including land, buildings, plant, machinery and storehouses, as at 11th November, 1918, was £65,000,000. I cannot at present give a definite answer to the second and third parts of the question, as the Disposal Board, which has been made responsible for the sale of surplus Government property, has only just completed its organisation.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: These figures do not include Government shipyards?

Mr. KELLAWAY: No.

Mr. ROSE: 39.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if he is aware that some of the national factories are particularly well fitted for the development of the cycle, motor cycle, and motor car and van industry, and that quantities of these articles are annually required by the Government itself for the use of the various Public Departments; whether he will therefore take steps to utilise such national factories for the manufacture of these things for the supply of the Government's own needs, instead of selling out the factories to war profiteers who have already, as the Excess Profits Duty statistics prove, made profits out of the contracts placed by his Department?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The possibility of using national factories for the manufacture of commodities required in considerable quantities by the Government is being carefully investigated. As the Government possess very largo surplus stocks of motor vehicles, I should not be justified at present in devoting a national factory to their manufacture.

Oral Answers to Questions — PILOT'S CERTIFICATE (GERMAN CAPTAIN).

Sir ARTHUR FELL: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the fact that the day after the
declaration of war a German ship was caught in the mouth of the Thames laying mines; and if the captain of that ship was in possession of a pilot's certificate for those waters granted him by the Board of Trade?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to answer this question. My hon. Friend apparently refers to the German man-of-war, the "Konigin Luise," an auxilitary cruiser, sunk south of Harwich while engaged in mine-laying on 5th August, 1914. I am informed by the Board of Trade that neither the captain nor any other officer of this vessel held a British pilot age certificate.

Sir A. FELL: Is it not a fact that there was a captain, though he may not have been in command of the ship, who was in possession of a certificate?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am advised by the Board of Trade "neither the captain nor any other officer," but I will make further inquiry.

Commander Sir E. NICHOLL: Would it not be possible for steps to be taken to cancel all foreign pilots' certificates?

Dr. MACNAMARA: That is not the question put down.

Oral Answers to Questions — NURSERY STOCK.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: 31.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, seeing that the United States Department of Agriculture has issued regulations to come into force on the 1st June next prohibiting the importation of nursery stock with certain exceptions, for which permits must be obtained, he has received representations from the Chamber of Horticulture on the subject; and what steps he proposes to take?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, the matter is receiving the serious consideration of the Board.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTUEAL EDUCATION. (ENGLAND AND WALES).

Lieutenant-Colonel C. M'LEAN: 32.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Board of Agriculture whether he is aware of the disapproval throughout the country of the proposals of the agricultural sub-committee to transfer the whole responsibility for agricultural education in England, and Wales from the local authorities to the Board of Agriculture; and if these proposals could be reconsidered?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The Board have already decided that they do not see their way to adopt the proposals to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, and local education authorities were so informed, in a circular dated the 8th January last.

Oral Answers to Questions — BLASTING TREE STUMPS (SURPLUS HIGH EXPLOSIVE).

Viscount WOLMER: 34.
asked the Minister of Munitions whether he can arrange with the Board of Agriculture that surplus high explosives should be supplied on easy terms to farmers and landowners who are anxious to blast away the stumps of felled woods in order tore plant the ground or plough it?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I am in communication with the Board of Agriculture on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY HUTS (DISUSED).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 42.
asked the Minister of Supply whether any steps are being taken, in conjunction with the Young Men's Christian Association or otherwise, to supply disused Army hats as social centres in those districts and villages where there is at present no social institute?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Up to the present very few huts have been reported as available for disposal. I shall be glad to consider favourably any offer made by the Young Men's Christian Association, or any other public body, for the purchase of huts for the purpose indicated in the question.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the handing over of the huts to the Association for Disabled Soldiers?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Provided the interests of the Exchequer are properly safe guarded, I shall be prepared to consider favourably any proposal of that kind.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the hon. Gentleman cause a public announcement to be made when these huts become available?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Certainly. It will all be done after full advertisement.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can my hon. Friend say that none of these huts will be given away for less than their full value for public purposes such as this?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I hope they will not be given away for less than, their full market value.

An HON. MEMBER: Is the hon. Member prepared to allocate any of these huts to Ireland?

Mr. KELLAWAY: If they will pay for them at their full value.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION.

PIVOTAL MEN (RELEASE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the release from the Army of pivotal men has been abandoned in favour of the release of those under contract with an employer, or whether both systems are now running concurrently?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): No, Sir, these two schemes are running concurrently. The period for applying for pivotal men ceased on the 31st January, but all pivotal men applied for by the appropriate authorities to the Ministry of Labour, and recommended by them to the War Office before the 1st February will be demobilised unless their retention in the Army is essential for demobilisation purposes. Men under contract can only be released provided that they are eligible for demobilisation under the recent Army Order making provision for the composition of the armies of occupation.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Mr. MacVEAGH: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of releasing all conscientious objectors in view of the fact that hostilities have come to an end?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has yet been reached as to the liberation of the
1,500 conscientious objectors who have now been in prison two or three years serving consecutive sentences?

Mr. BONAR LAW: This subject is receiving consideration, but the Government are not prepared to give a preference to this class by releasing them before the general demobilisation of the Army has been further advanced.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have not the men proved by being two years in prison that they are conscientious objectors, and is not the Government going to provide exemption for them?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The men who have been fighting for four years have also proved their patriotism.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon Gentleman consider the advisability of drafting them into the army of occupation as they would not have to fight?

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES (REINSTATEMENT).

Viscount WOLMER: 69.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government is prepared to reinstate all its employés who with permission volunteered for active service during the War, including workmen who were employed at Government establishments?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am glad to be able to assure my Noble Friend that the terms of the promise stated in the answer given to his question on the 13th instant include workmen employed at Government establishments, and all other employés whose service was not intermittent, but quasi-permanent and regular.

Viscount WOLMER: If I give the hon. Member individual facts, will he see that it is carried out?

Mr. BALDWIN: Certainly.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: With regard to the word "intermittent," does the answer apply to workmen in the Royal dockyards?

Mr. BALDWIN: The words "intermittent labour" apply to hired men in the Royal dockyards.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is he supposed to be a full worker?

Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot go into these details.

SOLDIERS OVER FORTY-ONE.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: 88.
asked whether a soldier who was forty-one years of age on 18th April, 1918, who volunteered under the Derby scheme in 1915, but was then rejected on medical grounds, and was afterwards deemed to be enlisted in 1916 under the Military Service Act, can now be released in accordance with the Ministry of Labour Circular of 8th January, 1919, provided employment is awaiting him?

Mr. WARDLE: Yes; subject to the current instructions as to priority and the exigencies of the Service.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENSORSHIP.

Mr. MacVEAGH: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, as hostilities have come to an end, the Government will now bring the various censorships to an end and allow the various censors and their staffs to return to their previous occupations?

Mr. BONAR LAW: This question has been considered by the Government, and it has been decided that it is not possible at present to put an end to the censorship.

Mr. KILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that you can cable to America without any censorship and you cannot cable to Austrialia?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I was not aware of that, but the whole subject has been most carefully considered with a view to making the relaxation as complete as is compatible with the public interest.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what concessions have been, made?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I cannot.

Oral Answers to Questions — PILOTS' CERTIFICATES.

Sir A. FELL: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention hao been called to the fact that pilots' certificates for British waters issued to captains of foreign merchant ships have been suspended during the War, but are again being issued to aliens; that the countries to which these aliens belong grant no pilots' certificates for their waters to British captains; and if steps will be at once taken to cancel all
such pilots' certificates to aliens and prevent their being issued or renewed or continued in any way, so that foreign ships may be compelled to carry British pilots in British waters?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I am informed that of the sixty-one pilotage certificates held by aliens at the outbreak of war thirty-seven, including all those held by Germans, have lapsed. Fresh certificates can only be issued to aliens under the strictly limited conditions contained in Section 24 of the Pilotage Act, 1913, and are always subject to the veto of the Admiralty on grounds of public safety. None are being issued at present, but the Board of Trade have no power to cancel the twenty-four certificates now held by aliens. In most countries pilotage is compulsory for all ships above a, certain tonnage, and the necessity for employing a pilot applies equally to all masters, national or alien—i.e., the pilotage certificate system does not exist at all.

Sir A. FELL: Is it not a fact that the captains of some Dutch ships have had their pilot certificates renewed since the Armistice?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like to have notice of that. As I said before, the Board of Trade have no power to cancel certificates.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

Mr. LYNN: 56.
asked whether the Ministry of Health which he proposes to establish will apply to Ireland?

Major ASTOR: I have been asked to reply to this question. The answer is in the negative.

Mr. LYNN: Why is Belfast left out and Birmingham and other places left in?

Major ASTOR: The hon. Member had better address that to the Prime Minister. I can only give the decision of the Cabinet.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISCHARGED SERVICE MEN.

HORTICULTURE.

Mr. LYNN: 58.
asked whether, in carrying out a scheme for assisting discharged soldiers to earn a livelihood, sympathetic
Consideration will be given to men who were recruited in urban areas and who do not desire to undertake farming but are anxious to obtain and cultivate garden plots; and whether the Treasury is proposed to assist such men to become owners of houses and plots?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The view expressed in the question is being dealt with in connection with the Bill, notice of introduction of which has already been given.

EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. MORRIS: 91.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of disabled soldiers and sailors with only one arm at present registered on the books of the Labour Exchanges in London and unable to find employment; why Government Departments are unwilling to employ them on the permanent staff as messengers and in other suitable capacities; and, in particular, whether he will take steps to secure that these war heroes shall be absorbed in the Post Office telegraph service as is now done by the cable companies?

Mr. WARDLE: With, regard to the first part of the question it is not possible, without inquiry, to state the number of disabled sailors and soldiers with only one arm at present registered on the books of the Employment Exchanges in London and unable to find employment, but the number who have had one arm either amputated or rendered useless is 110. The whole question of the employment of disabled members of His Majesty's Forces is engaging my close attention, and I hope that a general appeal to employers, to be followed by urgent administrative action, may shortly be issued. I am not aware that Government Departments are unwilling to employ disabled men on their permanent staffs as messengers and in other suitable capacities. On the contrary, the desirability of employing such men to the fullest possible extent has already been brought to the notice of the various Departments, and, following on the appeal to which I have already referred, I am convening a conference of representatives of all the Government Departments, when, of course, the possibilities in this connection of the Post Office telegraph service will not be overlooked.

Colonel BURN: Will preference be given to these disabled soldiers and sailors as messengers in Government offices?

Mr. WARDLE: As I have already indicated, we are calling a conference on the subject to go into the whole matter.

Colonel LOWTHER: To whom should these disabled soldiers and sailors apply, as if they write to the War Office their letters are not answered?

Mr. WARDLE: They should apply to the Ministry of Labour.

TRAINING.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 96.
asked the Pensions Minister the reasons why only so small a number as 7,939 men are now in training under the Pensions Warrant; and will he also state the number of men awaiting training and the reasons why their training is not commenced?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir J. Craig): The large majority of disabled men are either ineligible for training in that they can resume their pre-enlistment occupations, or do not seek it because they have accepted unskilled, and probably well-paid, employment. The number of men at present awaiting training is approximately 1,500. Of this number 885 desire to take up electrical or mechanical engineering, training for which is for the time being suspended pending certain negotiations with the National Trade Advisory Committee. They can quickly be put into training when a settlement has been reached. Of the remainder a large proportion wish to be trained in boot and shoe making and repairing, but as there is a limit to the absorbing capacity of this trade an endeavour is made, where possible, to induce the man to take up some other form of training.

Mr. F. O. ROBERTS: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to consider an increase of the training allowance?

Sir J. CRAIG: I think perhaps my hon. Friend had better put a question down dealing specifically with the matter.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reason why so few men are taking training is the inadequacy of the training grant?

Sir J. CRAIG: I think, as a matter of fact, there are difficulties with regard to training, and some of those difficulties we are at present attempting to overcome.

Oral Answers to Questions — OUT-OF-WORK DONATIONS (IRELAND).

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 92 and 93.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he is aware that the present scheme for granting out-of-work donations in Ireland has led to widely-extended idleness and refusal to work, to great scarcity of labour for agricultural and other purposes, and to a waste of public money; and whether he will at once take steps to stop this waste of public money and to hand over the money so saved to the Irish Government to be expended on useful purposes; and (2) whether he proposes to institute an inquiry into the abuses that have arisen in Ireland in relation to the scheme for granting out-of-work donations and the administration of such scheme; and what steps he proposes to take to check these abuses?

Mr. WARDLE: Various matters arising out of the working of the donation scheme in Ireland have been the subject of inquiry by the Ministry of Labour, and, in consequence of the reports that have beet, received, the Government have decided that the conditions in Ireland following on the cessation of hostilities vary so materially from those existing in Great Britain that it is necessary to limit the application of the scheme in Ireland in the future to demobolised members of His Majesty's Forces, insured trades, and certain trades to be certified by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland as those in which a substantial account of unemployment has been directly caused by the cessation of hostilities. It is further intended to make an immediate interim Grant from the Exchequer to enable works of general utility and of a reconstructive character to be undertaken in order to provide employment for demobilised members of His Majesty's Forces in Ireland.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will inquiries be made in cases where this out-of-work donation has already been wrongly given and will steps be taken to stop it in those cases at once?

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is a commission given by the Government to the officials who administer these donations?

Mr. WARDLE: Not that I am aware of, and if my hon. Friend has any information on the point and sends it on to me I will make further inquiries.

Mr. DEVLIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say why Ireland is differentiated against in this case?

Sir J. BUTCHER: Would my hon. Friend answer my question as to whether these donations if improperly given, will be at once stopped?

Mr. WARDLE: I must ask for notice of that question.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the reason why this injustice is to be done to Ireland because in England and in Scotland these out-of-work grants wore given by the Government to corrupt the electors at the last General Election?

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (NON-ATTENDANCE).

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that a number of Members recently elected to the House have expressed their intention of abstaining from attendance, and have so far failed to take the oath of allegiance to His Majesty; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take, in the matter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government do not propose to take any action in the matter.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to give notice that, in accordance with the practice of Parliament, I will move at an early date for a call of the House, and that those Members who do not respond should be brought here in custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL, MILITARY, AND AIR FORCE SERVICE BILL.

Mr. ARNOLD: 62.
asked the date on which the Naval, Military, and Air Force Service Bill will be introduced?

Captain GUEST: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I cannot yet fix a definite date, but I hope it will be possible to introduce the Bill shortly.

Mr. ARNOLD: In view of that reply, which admits there in no urgency in the matter, may I ask whether the notice of this Bill, which was given last Wednesday,
was not deliberately done so as to block an Amendment to the Address against Conscription?

Captain GUEST: Certainly not. It was raised by the Cabinet in advance.

Mr. ARNOLD: Why was it put down on Wednesday instead of Thursday?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY HOUSES.

Lieutenant-Colonel HERBERT: 71.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government adhere to the undertaking given that no Army horses should be sold in the East?

Captain GUEST: The only undertaking given was that no cast or worn-out horses should be sold in the East. As regards other horses the Instructions issued to General Officers Commanding in Eastern theatres of war are as follows:
Animals no longer required by the Armies in the Eastern theatres of war should be disposed of to the best advantage by sale or otherwise. At the same time, General Officers Commanding are instructed to exercise a very liberal discretion in destroying instead of selling horses, especially those of British origin, which it may be found impossible to repatriate, or which are not worth the freight, and for which good home cannot be found on the spot.

Major Earl WINTERTON: Before the Government proceed with their scheme will they take, the advice of Members of this House like my hon. and gallant Friend and myself who have served in the East and seen the unrestricted cruelties practised by the natives on animals?

Captain GUEST: Certainly.

Sir J. BUTCHER: What precautions are being taken that horses which are being sold will be treated humanely by the purchasers?

Sir A. FELL: Can a favourite charger be brought back by an officer?

Captain GUEST: In certain special cases that is being allowed.

Sir F. BANBURY: Is not the reason that cast horses were not sold in the East because it was feared that they would be ill-used and cruelly treated by the inhabitants, and would not that apply equally to all horses whether fit or unfit?

Captain GUEST: Judging by the high prices paid in the East for the younger and better horses there is some security that they will be better treated.

Sir J. BUTCHER: What guarantees have we that the horses shall be treated humanely?

Captain GUEST: The General Officers Commanding in those theatres have been given strict instructions to consider that point.

Sir J. BUTCHER: What are the instructions?

Captain GUEST: I have just read them out.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. WATERSON: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps for the removal of all restrictions imposed upon clubs and the social habits of the people by reason of the War, in accordance with his promise of 16th December last?

Major HENNESSY: 72.
asked the Prime Minister whether the time has arrived for the removal of all restrictions imposed upon the clubs and the social habits of the people by reason of the War, in accordance with his promise of 16th December last?

Mr. BONAR LAW: This question is being investigated by a Cabinet Committee, and I hope to be able to make a statement shortly on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL UNREST.

PROPAGANDA.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 73.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the industrial unrest prevailing through out the country, unrest that is being exploited in many instances by persons desiring to see a general movement made against law and order, he will consider the advisability of instituting at once some form of propaganda with a view of explaining to the workers the true position of affairs and bringing home to their minds the elementary principles of political economy?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government is in process of taking all reasonable means to make the true facts of the industrial situation known to the people.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will means be taken through propaganda such as was undertaken in regard to active service and war loans?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that there will be any advantage in detailing the steps that have been taken, but instructions were given some time ago and are being carried out by the Ministry of Labour.

An HON. MEMBER: Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange to give lessons in political economy to the hon. Gentleman opposite?

GLASS-WORKERS, SUNDERLAND.

Mr. HAYDAY: 86.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the action of glass-making firms in Sunderland in locking-out their workmen; whether he is aware that his Department upheld the men's claim for an advance as reasonable and just, and that the employers have refused to accept the award; and whether he can take any action in the matter?

Mr. WARDLE: The Sunderland and District Trades and Labour Council called attention to this matter a few days ago, and inquiries are being made, after which a communication will be made to the hon. Member.

MINING INDUSTRY (COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION).

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the miners' strike ballot, he will at once announce the constitution of the Committee of Investigation promised in the official reply to the Miners' Federation and whether he will arrange for its permanent session and the daily publication of at least a full précis of the evidence so that the public may know what are the merits of this dispute by which they may be so vitally affected?

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies may I ask, having regard to the suggestion which is being assiduously circulated in the mining districts that the Government propose this Committee for the purpose of indefinitely delaying a settlement, whether he is in a position to announce that they will have to report and make their recommendations within a definite period?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My answer deals with that point. The Committee of Investigation is now being formed, and its constitution will be announced as soon as possible. The Committee will sit per-
manently, and will be asked to report on the question of wages and hours of work by the 31st of March. The hon. Member's suggestion as to the means to be taken to keep the public informed of the proceedings will receive the careful consideration of the Government.

Mr. THOMAS: Without giving the personnel, can the right hon. Gentleman say what the general lines of constitution will be, and whether it is to be employers and employed, or what trades will be represented?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it would be possible for me to give anything like details, but the intention of the Government is to set up a Committee which will represent employers and employed and the general interests of the public as well.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if by the use of the word "permanent" he means continuous sittings to 31st March, or is this to be a permanent arrangement?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I will use either word my hon. Friend desires. The intention of my answer wan that the Government will ask this Committee to sit from day to day, so far as it can, in order that there may not be any delay.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the terms of reference to this Committee will be?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I am sure my hon. Friend can hardly expect them to-day.

An HON. MEMBER: Will there be any representative of Irish labour on that Committee?

Mr. DEVLIN: Not at all.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I hardly think labour in Ireland is directly interested in this question, but it will be considered.

Mr. DEVLIN: Irish labour is interested in my next question.

BELFAST (MILITARY INTERVENTION).

Mr. DEVLIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War at whose request the military were brought into Belfast; whether the demand for the military included machine guns, tanks, and other instruments of war, and whether, in view of the absolute freedom of Belfast
from disturbance and the good order which prevailed during the last three weeks during the strike, he will explain why this wanton and provocative introduction of tanks and machine guns has taken place?

Captain GUEST: No notice has been given of that question.

Mr. DEVLIN: I sent it two hours ago. Will he be able to answer the question to-night?

Captain GUEST: I think it had better be postponed till to-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY FORCES (THANKS OF PARLIAMENT).

Mr. R. McNEILL: 74.
asked the Prime Minister when he intends to move that the thanks of Parliament be offered to the Naval and Military Forces of the Crown?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As stated in the Speech from the Throne, it is the intention of the Government to move this Resolution, but I am not yet in a position to name a definite date.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 75.
asked whether the Government intend, to allow women the right of separate assessment, relief, and abatement of Income Tax without reference to the husband's income?

Mr. BALDWIN: The question raised by my hon. Friend will fall within the scope of the comprehensive inquiry into the Income Tax which is about to be made by a Royal Commission.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does not my hon. Friend think that a great difference is made by the fact that women are now on a practical political equality with men?

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. FRANCE: 76.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint a Select Committee, as promised by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, to inquire into the whole question of the inadequacy and anomalies of old age pensions as at present granted?

Sir CHARLES HENRY: 97.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in the modifications made as regards old age pensions during the War anomalies in the granting of same have been accentuated; and if it is the intention to set up a Committee to investigate and report upon this matter?

Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to appoint a Committee to inquire into this subject.

Mr. FRANCE: Will this Committee be appointed at once?

Mr. BALDWIN: Its terms are under consideration.

An HON MEMBER: Will this Committee give its decision during the lifetime of the present Government?

Mr. BALDWIN: That depends on the life of the present Government.

Captain REDMOND: Will this Committee apply to Ireland?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think that it must necessarily.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TERMS.

Mr. RAPER: 78.
asked whether one of the conditions of peace shall be that the enemy countries return all war material captured from the Allies?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not possible to enter into details at this stage with regard to the military terms of peace, but the point is one which is not being lost sight of.

Oral Answers to Questions — INLAND TRANSPORT.

Sir F. HALL: 80.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Committee appointed last Session to inquire into the question of inland transport recommended that the Treasury should grant facilities to the New Transport Company, Limited, to raise further capital in order that more demonstrations might be given by that company as to their clearing-house system; whether the recommendation of the Select Committee has been granted; and, if not, whether he will state on what grounds it was refused in view of the great necessity for improvement in the present transport system?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Capital Issues Committee could not see their way to follow the Select Committee's recommendation in view of that Committee's opinion that the capital to be raised would be devoted to a highly speculative use.

Sir F. HALL: Is there any use in Select Committees being appointed at all if the whole Report is to be squashed by the Treasury or some other Government Department?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES.

Sir FRANCIS BLAKE: 81.
asked whether the Government proposes to set up a separate Department of Fisheries; and, if so, whether a Bill for that purpose will be introduced at an early date?

Mr. PERCY: 29.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the importance of developing the fishing industry as a means of adding to the food supply of the nation, the Government will consider the question of appointing a Minister of Fisheries or give an opportunity for a discussion of the question?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not the present intention of the Government to set up a separate Department of Fisheries.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.

Mr. ROSE: 83.
asked the Minister of Labour what numbers of persons, distinguishing as far as possible between industrial grades, are now registered at the Employment Exchanges as being in search of situations; what are the numbers of discharged soldiers, civil war workers, and others, men, women, and young persons, in receipt of the various rates of unemployment benefit from the Exchequer or the Insurance Fund, and the amount thereof, including the sums paid for their dependent children, now being issued weekly?

Mr. WARDLE: I am causing inquiries to be made, and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 64.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will lay upon the Table
a statement showing the constitution, duties, and distributor of business of his Department?

Mr. WARDLE: I am laying on the Table a list of the Departments and branches of the Ministry, which I trust will give the hon. Member the information he desires.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAGES (TEMPORARY REGULATION) ACT.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 85.
asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the fact that the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act will expire soon after the resumption of business after the Easter Recess, what action the Government proposes to take to prevent the disaster of any general attempt to procure a fall in the wages of labour?

Mr. WARDLE: It is hoped that the freedom to negotiate upon wages matters which has been in a large measure restored to employers and employed by the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act will result in satisfactory wage arrangements of a permanent character being definitely established in each trade before the Act expires. Failing satisfactory arrangements being arrived at after further experience of the working of the Act, the position will be reviewed in the light of the experience gained and of the circumstances then obtaining.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.

Mr. HAYDAY: 87.
asked the Minister of Labour to what date the last published Annual Report extends describing the work of the Employment Exchanges; and whether he will consider the possibility of publishing at an early date a Report dealing with the operations and organisation of these Exchanges down to the 31st March last?

Mr. WARDLE: No report on the work of the Employment Exchanges apart from unemployment insurance has yet been published. A Report was prepared dealing with the work of the Exchanges up to July, 1914, but owing to circumstances connected with the War, publication was not proceeded with. I hope to publish a Report as soon as circumstances permit.

Oral Answers to Questions — STRIKES (CANADIAN LEGISLATION).

Mr. K. JONES: 89.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called
to the nature of the Railway Labour Disputes Act, 1903, in Canada and its effect in averting strikes; and whether he is prepared to recommend the introduction of its principles into this country?

Mr. WARDLE: The particular Act to which the hon. Member refers was considered by Sir G. Ask with in 1912, and is reported upon by him in the Report he made on the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of Canada. This Report has been, under the consideration of the Government, and it is proposed to take an early opportunity of obtaining the views of employers and workpeople's organisations on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN WORKERS (IMMIGRATION).

Mr. MORRIS: 90.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the quarter of a million of workers of foreign nationality already in London, many of them in non-productive but lucrative occupations, he will state what restrictions are now imposed on the immigration of foreign workers to London; and whether he will recommend that special passport facilities be granted to foreign waiters and other foreigners now or recently on strike to enable them to proceed forthwith to their our countries and thus minimise unemployment amongst our own people?

Mr. WARDLE: The immigration of aliens to the United Kingdom during the War is controlled by the Aliens Restriction Order and in addition to the general instruction it is provided by Article 22b thereof that no person may import alien labour without the permission of the Ministry of Labour. This article is very carefully administered and permission has been given only where British labour was not available. As regards the question of the moving from the country aliens workmen who have been on strike, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 13th February by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

FUNERAL ALLOWANCE.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 94.
asked the Pensions Minister what is the maximum amount paid by the Ministry in respect of
funerals of soldiers and sailors; whether the Poor Law authorities have had in certain cases to supplement such amount; whether his attention has been called to the protest recently made against the limited amount so paid by the Ministry, and the consequent necessity of application for Poor Law assistance; and whether he is prepared to take such action as will avoid the necessity of application being so made to the Poor Law authorities?

Sir J. CRAIG: In the case of a discharged soldier or sailor dying from a disability due to service a grant can be made under the Regulations of the Special Grants Committee, up to a maximum of £5. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is in the affirmative. My right hon. Friend is considering whether it would not be possible to increase the grants to such an amount as would make these applications unnecessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 95.
asked the Pensions Minister the reasons why so large a number as 2,832 men whose stumps are healed are still awaiting the fitting of artificial limbs; whether any of the reasons for this delay can be got rid of; and, if so, what steps are being taken, or will be taken, to expedite matters?

Sir J. CRAIG: The rate of progress in the fitting of artificial limbs is governed by the limits of accommodation in the fitting hospitals and of the output of limbs by the limb-makers. The number of men on the waiting list is large, but actually it represents what is now a normal two months' work for the fitting hospitals. The question of delay will be examined by the Committee, of which I gave my hon. Friend particulars last week.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILLS PRESENTED.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH BILL,—"to establish a Ministry of Health and a Board of Health to exercise in England and Wales, and in Scotland, respectively, powers with respect to health and local government; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Dr. Addison; supported by
Mr. Fisher, Mr. Munro, and Major Astor; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 4.]

LOCAL ELECTIONS (EXPENSES) BILL,—"to amend Section five of the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act 1884, and Section nine of the Elections (Scotland) (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1890, as to expenses of candidates at Local Elections," presented by Dr. Addison; supported by Mr. Munro, the Attorney-General, and Major Astor; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 5.]

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ADAMSON: Will the Leader of the House inform us what the business on Thursday and Friday will be?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid I cannot now give any definite reply. It will depend on the rapidity with which we get through the Procedure Resolutions.

Lord H. CECIL: Will there be a general discussion on these Resolutions, not necessarily of a prolonged character, before they are taken seriatim?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that would be the most convenient course, and, with the approval of Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that that general discussion should take place on the first of the Resolutions I move.

NOTICES OF MOTION:

ALIENS.

On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, to call attention to the question of enemy and other undesirable aliens, and to move a Resolution.—[Sir J. Butcher and Mr. Wilson-Fox.]

PRICE OF FOOD.

On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, to call attention to the price of food, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Denison-Pender and Mr. G. Thorne.]

BOARD OF TRADE.

On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, to call attention to the administration of the Board of Trades, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. G. Terrell.]

DISCHARGE ON DEMOBILISATION.

On going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, to move the following Resolution:
That, in the opinion of this House, men of all ranks who enlisted for the duration of the War should, upon demobilisation, be entitled to their complete discharge."—[Mr. William Graham.]

DISTRIBUTION OF THE FLEET.

On going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, to call attention to the distribution of the Fleet, and to move a Resolution—[Mr. Brace.]

ARMY RECRUITMENT.

On going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, to call attention to the size and method of recruitment of the Army, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Arnold.]

FISHING INDUSTRY.

On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, to call attention to the conditions under which our fishing industry is carried on, and to move a Resolution.—[Colonel Burn.]

SALE OF NATIONAL FACTORIES.

On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, to move the following Resolution:
That this House regrets the action of the Government in selling shops, factories, stores, and other properties created or acquired by the State during the War, and is of opinion that all these properties ought to be retained by the State and used to their full extent in civil industry in the interests of the community."—[Mr. Grundy.]

RE-ELECTION OF MINISTERS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
4.0 P.M.
The subject of the Bill is one with which Members of the House are very familiar. It has been not only a subject of debate, but of conversation, among Members for a very long time. In the past, I think, it has been regarded almost entirely from the point of view of party interest. Every Government would have liked to see the system abolished and every Opposition enjoyed it, and no Opposition looked far enough ahead to put the future disadvantage against the momentary advantage. It is said—I do not know with what accuracy—that towards the end of the Government of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary (Mr. Balfour) the proposal was made to the then Opposition that the course proposed in this Bill should be adopted. That proposal was not agreed to, but it was one of the ironies of politics that within two or three years the then Opposition was suffering more inconvenience from it than the then Government. I shall endeavour, very briefly and as fairly as I can, to put the arguments for and against the existing system and to give
the House the reasons which have induced the Government to come definitely to the conclusion that the continuance of the present system is not in the public interest. In the first place, I should like to call the attention of the House to the absurdity of the law as it stands, and not merely to the absurdity, but to the Confusion of the law. That cannot be better illustrated than by the fact that when the first Coalition Government was formed one of the Law Officers was himself liable to re-election and did not know it, and subjected himself in consequence to very heavy penalties, for which an Act of Indemnity had to be passed by Parliament. It is very absurd in the case of those who have to be elected, and also of those who have not to be elected. For instance, if they fill the post of Junior Lord of the Treasury they have to seek re-election, and, as a matter of fact, the legal advisers of the Crown came to the conclusion that even Junior Lords of the Treasury, who receive no salary, were still technically holding an office of profit under the Crown, and had to be re-elected. That applied to re-election in the case of the Junior Officers, while at the same time other officers, for instance, the Financial Secretaries to the Treasury and most important Under-Secretaries, did not require re-election at all. The absurdity was shown in another direction. In the first Coalition Government the present Prime Minister gave up the post of Minister of Munitions in order to become Secretary for War, and, without knowing it, by doing so he rendered himself liable to re-election. The same thing has happened now. My right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was, like the rest of us, a member of the Government in another office, is also to-day liable for re-election. All that happens simply because certain offices are not in a particular Schedule of an Act that was passed many years ago.
I quite admit that the confusion and absurdity of the present practice is no justification for the change I am asking the House to make. If the principle were right, then the proper course would be for the Government to amend the law, and for that reason I shall ask the House now, quite fairly, to consider whether or not the principle is a good one in existing conditions. It is common ground, I think, that the particular purpose for which the
original Act was passed has become an entire anachronism, and is of no further use. The question is part of the long-continued struggle between Parliament and the Throne as to the proportion of power to be divided between them. That is shown very clearly by this fact. The Statute which governs all the others was passed in the reign of Queen Anne. It was at the same time as the Union of Scotland and England, but six years before an Act had been passed which made it not only impossible but illegal for anyone enjoying an office of profit under the Crown—that is to say, for any Minister—to sit in the House of Commons at all. As a matter of fact, that Act never became the practice of our Constitution, though it was imported into the American Constitution. It would be a very convenient Act now for Ministers, but the House will see how completely the object has been changed. Everyone now agrees that this proposal, if it had been carried, would have had one effect, that of depriving the House of Commons of the power which is so necessary of having Ministers here. It will be admitted that the purpose for which the Act was passed no longer exists. The last example of any dispute between Parliament and the Crown on the question of personal government was in the reign of George III. Since then there has been no question, and therefore, from the point of view of the purpose for which the Act was passed, everyone will agree that it is no longer required.
I acknowledge that that does not settle the question. In a Constitution like ours, which is not a written Constitution, which is made up not only of laws, but of practices and usages, many laws and many usages adopted for one purpose had to be used for another. It is suggested that this is required as a protection no longer against the Crown, but as a protection against the Executive Government of the day. I wish the House of Commons to realise exactly what that means. This law was passed originally in order to strengthen the House of Commons, but its only use now is a check on the House of Commons. [An Hon. Member: "On the Government!"] Not at all. I am surprised my hon. Friend should say so. I hope to convince him he is wrong. It is a check on the House of Commons, and nothing else. No Government now can exist for a single day if it has not the support of a majority of the House of
Commons; therefore, obviously the Executive Government in this connection really represents the House of Commons. That is quite clear. Whatever protection this is, it is a protection of the electorate against the House of Commons itself. It has no other meaning. I quite admit that it has not been without its use. It is a common complaint of every Opposition to say of a Government which has existed for a year or two that it has lost the confidence of the electors, and that the country is against it. That claim has been made by every Opposition since I have been a Member of the House. One of the methods by which the truth of that statement can be tested is by pointing to by-elections. We used to be told that by-elections were the "writing on the wall," the clear sign that the Government had lost the confidence of the country. I quite admit that anything which keeps the House of Commons in touch with the electors during its continuance is an advantage, but I would like the House to consider to what extent this is a help in that question. I remember well that the Government in regard to which the kind of charge which I have mentioned was made more emphatically than any other was the Conservative Government which came to an end in 1905. I had the numbers of by-elections looked up in the two last years of the existence of that Government when it was most asserted that it had lost the confidence of the country. In 1904 there were twenty-four by-elections and none of them were due to this cause. In 1905 there were twenty-two by-elections and two of them only were due to this cause. The House will see that the continuance of this law as a test of the authority which the House of Commons hold—of the strength of its hold on the country—is very slight.
But it has been suggested that a House of Commons elected for one purpose might, in the course of its existence, set up an entirely new Government and try to carry out some entirely different plan, for which they have received no mandate. That is a possibility of course, but again I ask the House to realise that that is a protection against the House of Commons and nothing else. Obviously if it was a new Government and the House of Commons did not approve of it it would have the power of moving Resolutions condemning it, and that is the end of it. It
is a protection, therefore, against the House of Commons. My own view is that against an evil of that kind, which would really be a usurpation by the House of Commons of powers to which it was not entitled, anything of the substance of the present law on this subject would be practically useless. It would be too great an evil to be cured or even affected in any way by a law such as this. It would require some other protection. After giving, as other Members of the House have given, a great deal of thought to this subject, I am of opinion that if an evil of that kind ever arose the real remedy is a Second Chamber strong enough to revise its action. I am quite sure that this law as it stands would have no effect. For instance, if the House of Commons was carrying out such a plan clearly the Government has a majority. It can immediately refuse doing the very thing I ask the House to do. That Bill would be carried in the House of Commons, but it could not become law until it had been passed in another place. If the House of Lords in a case of that kind were prepared to reject the Bill brought forward by the Government of the day and passed by the House of Commons it would do so because the House of Commons was usurping powers which it did not possess. Clearly it would have the same power of bringing the question to a test by any other Bill which the Government chose to pass.

Viscount WOLMER: How about the Parliament Act?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am surprised that my Noble Friend should put that question. Does he not know how many years it takes for this Parliament Act to work?

Viscount WOLMER: Two years.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think I have shown the value of that as a check on the House of Commons represented by the Government of the day. I ask the House now to consider the disadvantage which the public service has to undergo in order to have that advantage. Take first of all the inconveniences, not to the Government but to the public service. You could not have a better illustration of it than the present position. It was recognised during the War by the passing of a Bill relieving Ministers from the necessity of having to go to the constituencies for re-election. If that was necessary then I
say this, that at no time during the War was the pressure of work upon Ministers greater than it is at the present moment. So that the reasons which made it necessary during the War apply now. I ask the House just to look at some of the Ministers affected—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Food.

Mr. DEVLIN: What about the Chief Secretary for Ireland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Take these three offices. We have found the disadvantage of not having them in the House of Commons during the Address, and I would remind the House it would have been impossible for them to be here if they had sought re-election; and, indeed, the argument which applied before is in a sense stronger now, because, owing to the Franchise Act, it would take longer for Ministers to get back. Just consider what that means to the offices concerned. I am not speaking merely of their absence from this House, although that is a great drawback. It is far worse than that. They are absolutely overwhelmed with work. Everybody knows that an election in this country is becoming more and more exacting. Would it really be reasonable to send these Ministers away from their work down to their constituencies to undergo another election a month or two after being re-elected to this House? And does anyone believe that, if Ministers are of any use at all, that must not be a disadvantage to the public service? Of course, it would not be an equal disadvantage in ordinary times, when only one office is vacant and one Minister is seeking re-election; but, on the other hand, the particular office might be one which requires the undivided attention of the Minister, and, as a general principle, it is imperative that a new Minister should devote himself quickly and completely to the work of the Department to which he is appointed.
Looking at these considerations since the Election was over, the Government came definitely to the conclusion that, apart altogether from the interests of Ministers or the Government, it would be a distinct harm to the public service to take them away from their work. We decided that that should not be done, but that we would ask the House of Commons to support us in the proceeding we are now taking. So much from the point of view of inconvenience, and, of course,
that is the main argument against the present condition of things. But I would ask the House to consider—and this applies to the general principle, and not to the present necessity—two other facts. Those who have been for some length of time in the House of Commons know that Governments and Oppositions in the past—they are, perhaps, going to be wiser in the future—have been profoundly influenced by what afterwards seemed very slight influences. I have seen people standing on the Bench opposite with delight, and cheering themselves hoarse, because a Government has lost a particular by-election. When that is the case, if you take the psychology of Governments into account, it follows that, not liking demonstrations of that kind, they will select for any office that has become vacant somebody they are sure will be re-elected. That has happened. I have reason to believe it happened in my own case, because the Whips of my party told me at the time that if I had had a safe seat I would have been a member of a Government in 1905. That is a hardship on individuals. But if that were all, it would be a very small thing. But it is not a question of individuals. If a Government is driven by a law of this country to select somebody, not because it thinks he is the best for the post—and every Government gets blamed a great deal for not selecting the best people. I often wonder what selection its critics would make if they had the chance of choosing the members of the Government—at all events, this is the result. It must be a disadvantage to the public service if there is any law which tends to drive Governments to select the second best instead of the best men for offices.
The only other point I put to the House as regards general principles is the unnecessary expense to which a Minister is driven in seeking re-election under such circumstances. I do not know whether the House attaches the same importance to that as I do. I attach the greatest importance to it. When I first entered the House of Commons I used to hear a great deal of talk about professional politicians. I entirely sympathise with the idea underlying the use of that term, if it means that a politician is in politics for the sake of making money, but I have no sympathy whatever for it if it means that a politician ceases to be an amateur and throws his whole heart into the business of poli-
tical life. From that point of view I want them to be professional politicians. See what this means. It is, of course, a tremendous advantage to anyone entering political life to be financiallyindependent—to know that he can live without his salary. I am not speaking now as a Conservative; it is not a question of party. I cannot imagine any greater evil than that our choice of men in any party should be limited to those in that financial position. It really is a big thing to a man who has no private means, and depends upon his salary, that we should ask a man of that kind to be called upon unnecessarily to submit to the expense of another election.
That is all I wish to say, but perhaps I may be allowed to summarise what I have said. I think it is an advantage that there should be, by means of these by-elections, an opportunity of letting the country give its vote. Against that you have to take, in the first place, the inconvenience to the public service of taking men away from their work; in the second place, that it does not tend to limit the choice of men to fill offices; and, in the third place, that this system really is a handicap to men engaged in political life who have no private means. I believe I have put this case as I see it as fairly as I can, and if Members of the House do what has never been done before, that is, put away from their minds the idea that a particular course will damage the Government or help it, and will look at the question simply from the point of view of what, in the long run, will be in the public interest, I have really little doubt that they will come to the conclusion that the course the Government suggest is the right one.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: The whole House must be very much indebted to my right hon. Friend for the learned, as well as the lucid, way in which he has dealt with a most difficult subject. But I fear, from the point of view which I feel compelled to take with regard to part of the measure, he has been all too persuasive. I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend said when he challenged the issue on the question of principle. He also truly stated that, although the main cause for which the Act of 1707 was passed had really disappeared, it was an essential part of the British Constitution that certain methods or means of procedure, which were applied in one direction, in
the course of years become very useful parts of the Constitution when used in quite another direction. It is, therefore, very important that we should bear that in mind in connection with this subject, which is of a highly technical and an intricate nature, and which, I would say, has not only been the subject of many conversations and debates in this House, but of one or two really important decisions. The classic decision on the whole of this question, I think, was given by Sir William Harcourt in 1869, when the whole subject was thrashed out. The House then refused the Motion which was placed before it, and Sir W. Harcourt quoted what Hallam said with very great effect—
These restrictions ought to be rigorously and jealously maintained, and receive a construction according to their constitutional spirit, and not as if they were of a penal nature to individuals.
The Bill which is laid before the House to-day has apparently only one object, but it has two very distinct effects, and I propose in what I have to say to make that distinction. First of all, I for one, at any rate, heartily agree with what the Leader of the House has said in support of the Bill on this one point, and that is the uselessness, indeed the waste, of public time and money which is caused by the re-election of Ministers immediately after a General Election. I do not think there can be any real cause shown for by-elections in the case of Ministers whom the Leader of the House has named. There is not the slightest doubt that the opinion of the country has been clearly and definitely given, and an unprecedented majority has been the result. It cannot be said with any real truth or justice that the time has now arrived when the opinion of particular constituencies should be tested as to whether Ministers should take offices of profit under the Crown or not. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared that this measure should have a time limit put to it. I would suggest that for a period of nine months after a General Election, or indeed the election of any Member at a by-election, he should be enabled to take an office of profit under the Crown without having once again to seek re-election. I hope I have made any position with regard to that perfectly clear.
What about the other point? I think it is a point of real constitutional importance, because our Constitution differs.
as we all know, entirely and fundamentally from what you may call the presidential form of government such as they have in the United States. Ours is the Cabinet form of government. The Presidential form of government can be entirely indifferent to what goes on in the country. They have got their positions for a term of four or five years, as the case may be, and are entirely independent of the people of the country for that period of years. Not so with our form of government. The very essence of our form of government surely is this, that there is a real union between the Executive and the Legislative Chamber. There is a very close connection also between the Legislative Chamber and the electorate. From time to time—all through our history, certainly during the past 100 years or more—these by-elections have influenced policy and even—rightly or wrongly—changed it. Certainly they have had a very profound and direct effect upon the policy of the Ministry, until, it may be, the last eight or ten years. The series of by-elections which take place are bound to have a real and vital effect upon the policy of the Ministry of the day. It is perhaps un-fortunate for Ministers, and perhaps very discouraging to the Ministry. The basis of our government being what it is, these inconveniences, as the Leader of the House has so clearly stated, may be very hard indeed. I would, however, repeat what Hallam says, that however it may be with individuals, it is
of the utmost importance that we should maintain the constitutional principle.
What are the methods of testing the opinion of the country from time to time? They are, so to speak, putting the political thermometer into the body politic outside this House. There is, unhappily, the incidence of death. In this connection I am sure we shall all have heard with the deepest and most profound regret of the death of one of the hon. and gallant Members of this House, Colonel Sir Mark Sykes—

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!—

Sir D. MACLEAN: —a man whose wide sympathies, deep learning, and high public spirit make his death a great loss to this country. There is the incidence of death. There is that of bankruptcy. There is the case of a Member becoming insane. No Member can
resign his seat. The only way of getting rid of his obligations when sent here is to apply for the Chiltern Hundreds, which, as someone has said, is not in effect an office. These are the methods, and this other one, following the acceptance of an office of profit under the Crown, is a real and most valuable method of keeping this House in touch with the country.
My right hon. Friend has said the method is not so much a check on the Government as a check on the House of Commons. And a very good thing too! Why should not the House of Commons have a check administered from time to time by the country? After all, we are not mere delegates, we are representatives; and I repeat that a fundamental part of our Constitution is made up by an intimate connection between this House with the electorate. If we take away that valuable means of keeping in touch with the electorate, consider what we are effecting? Let us be perfectly clear about it. If to-day we give the Government what it asks, we are effecting a real, a great, and a constitutional change. Let us see for one moment—and I will speak as briefly as I possibly can—how it affects the present situation. The Government is in. It came back from the country at a time of deep popular excitement. I do not suppose anybody who listens to me at the present time would deny that if the election took place to-day, there would not be anything like so great a majority as there is now in the House.

HON. MEMBERS: "No, no"! and "Why"?

Sir D. MACLEAN: It was a time of deep popular excitement. We have a Coalition Government. Let us suppose two years have passed. The Prime Minister of the day feels it necessary, in view of the high responsibilities of his office, to reconstruct his Government. The reconstruction of that Government may result in a Conservative Administration. It may result in a Liberal and Labour Administration. It may result in some other change which at the present time we cannot contemplate. Can anyone say that two years hence it would not be a right and proper thing to have half a dozen or more by-elections, so as to gauge the feelings of the people on the change? Any fair-minded man must admit it would be so. If this Bill pass, there will be no opportunity at all to do that. The Govern-
ment can be reconstructed as often as the head of it thinks well or wishes. He may entirely change its constitution. And, except in the way to which I have already alluded, there will be no opportunity of any expression of public opinion At a time of an ad hoc election, so to speak, on a miniature scale, there ought to be that opportunity. If we allow this Bill to pass, there is the probability of which I have spoken. I do not say it is a great probability, but every reasonable man must contemplate such a probability; and we have no constitutional right to allow this Bill to pass without safeguarding such a contingency. The matter is one which requires the most grave consideration. If we are to maintain the central fundamental proinciple of which I have spoken, I repeat that the essence of the existence of this House is that it should be in effective and intimate contact with the public opinion of the day.
There is another point in connection with the Bill. As I said the other day, this election has swept out of the House very largely the representatives of unpopular causes, and there is abroad in the country a feeling that if they cannot agitate inside the House they must agitate outside. This House is the place in which to agitate. Anyone who reads the newspapers knows what is going on outside, the dangerous spirit that is abroad—and the deliberate campaign against the authority of this House. We give opportunity by putting to one side one of our constitutional opportunities for an expression of opinion upon the House of Commons and the Government. We give by this another weapon into the hands of those in whom is this spirit of opposition. We should by proper action take all real offensive power that we possibly can out of their hands. I should like to say a word or two about Clause 2 of the Bill, of which my right hon. Friend said nothing. I do not quite understand what it means. It says:—
Where, before or after the passing of this Act, a member of His Majesty's Privy Council has been or is appointed to be a Minister of the Crown at a salary, without any other office being assigned to him, he shall not by reason thereof be deemed to have been or to be incapable of being elected to or of sitting….he shall not….be deemed to have vacated his seat.
My right hon. Friend might have told us what is the real object of this Clause, and what it really does. I may be quite
wrong, but as far as I can make out it gives power to appoint three more Ministers.

Mr. BONAR LAW: Three altogether.

Sir D. MACLEAN: There is already one, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes). I suppose one of the objects of this particular Clause is to regularise his position, because I can imagine it may be subject to some legal dubiety. But why two more Ministers? Surely there are now enough Ministers of the Crown. Why add two Ministers more, who are going to be salaried Ministers, as we used to say in this football days of "flying political men" in the Cabinet, with no special post at all, except, it may be, an advisory one? This is really a matter which requires very careful and close consideration. I am sure my right hon. Friend will be able to give us much more complete information than we already possess in regard to Clause 2. I think it will be admitted that what happened in 1915–16 is no precedent at all, for then it was a matter of a purely war measure. I myself remember listening to Sir Robert Finlay when he spoke on the measure introduced by the Attorney-General (Sir John Simon). Sir Robert Finlay said:
The Bill is an emergency Bill devoted to deal with a particular crisis….I do not share the views which obtain in the minds of some hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House as to the desirability of abrogating the rule.
But the whole of that legislation of 1915–16 was of a purely emergency and temporary character. The measure at present before us is to have fundamental and permanent effects, whatever happens, and whatever may be the consequences. I have already indicated, as far as I can make it clear to the House, that I have no objection to a Bill of this kind in so far as it affects a General Election and for about nine months afterwards.

An HON. MEMBER: Six months!

Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not mind whether it be nine or twelve months; at any rate, that, for a reasonable period, there shall be a time within which men should be appointed to these offices without the necessity of going through another election. Beyond that, I fear, as at present advised, I shall have to give the Bill strenuous opposition and at all times careful consideration.

Mr. ADAMSON: In the few remarks which I am about to make regarding the Bill which has been introduced for Second Reading this afternoon I do not intend to discuss the constitutional issue that has been raised. At the moment I am not going to say much concerning whether this time-worn arrangement is a good or a bad one, but, after what has transpired within the past few days, I think that the present time is a most inopportune one for the Government to introduce a Bill of this character. During last week my colleagues and myself raised in this House the question of industrial unrest. We asked the Prime Minister, as strongly as we could, to tell us what the Government intended to do with a view of finding a solution to it. The Prime Minister in his reply greatly disappointed members of the Labour party in this House. Not only was the character of his reply a disappointment to members of the Labour party in this House, but it was a disappointment to the Labour movement throughout the country. Since then we have had the Minister of Labour, in a letter to one leading trade union official—a letter which was published in the Press—objecting to the terms of the ballot about to be taken by that particular trade union. Again this morning we observe that the Minister of Labour has sent a proposal to the Prime Minister for the calling of an industrial conference which the leading representatives of capital and labour will be invited to attend. That same report announces that the Prime Minister was greatly impressed by the speeches made on behalf of labour in Parliament last week, and he feels that such a proposal should have the serious consideration of the Government. To-day we have had the Leader of the House intimating that the Government intend to proceed with the setting up of a certain Commission of Inquiry outlined in the Government's reply to the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, and it is proposed at an early date to set up this Commission of Inquiry notwithstanding the fact that the organisation to which that proposal was made has given it a very cold reception. My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) has pointed out that he did not object to such an arrangement being made in this Bill as would arrange for Ministers who would otherwise have to seek re-election being made in the case of present Ministers, and
his chief reason was that we had only recently had a General Election. I want to point out that at the General Election we had no detailed programme put forward by the Government, but since then we have had an indication of the manner in which the Government intend to deal with some of the great issues that are in front of the people of this country.
I have already drawn attention to the unfavourable reply of the Prime Minister to the appeals of Labour Members last week, for that reply was more in the nature of a lecture to labour as to how they should conduct themselves. If those remarks which the Prime Minister addressed to labour had also been applied to capital we could not have taken so much objection to them, but in the main the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were applied to labour. Since the General Election we have also seen that the Government are disposing of certain valuable property belonging to the State which during the War the Government were compelled to purchase and provide, because private enterprise had failed to give all the supplies that were necessary for the carrying on of the War. These things give us some indication of the policy to be pursued by the Government, and in fact of these facts the members of the Labour party cannot be a. consenting party to a proposal which provides for Ministers not requiring to seek re-election at this juncture. In view of the serious labour situation this opposition of ours more particularly applies to the Ministry of Labour. If the Government are convinced that the policy they are pursuing in regard to labour is a good one, they should have no fear in regard to any Minister seeking re-election. In view of these facts the Labour party cannot consent to the Second Reading of this Bill, and I beg to move, "That the Bill be read a second time this day six months."

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) has already given me notice that he intends to move that Motion. I did not know that the right hon. Gentleman was going to move the rejection of this Bill or I should have called upon the hon. Member for South Hackney, and I do not think it right that the right hon. Gentleman should forestall the action of the hon. Member for South Hackney.

Mr. ADAMSON: I did not know that I was infringing any rule of that character, and therefore I do not move.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
I have listened with very great attention and due respect to the discussion which has so far proceeded on this Bill, and, though unrepentant, I rise to move what is tantamount to its rejection. I desire, with great respect to the Government, to express my regret that the first measure introduced into this House by the Government is one for its own personal benefit, and one in which it is personally so directly interested. That is a somewhat caustic remark, but it is not my own, because I borrowed it from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel), who used that phrase when a similar measure to this was introduced in 1915. Therefore I am fortified in my present attitude by knowing that so redoubtable a champion will be on my side. Upon the formation of the first Coalition Ministry a Bill of this kind was introduced to operate for the duration of the War, but it was limited to two months, and on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy said:
I regret that the first measure brought forward before Parliament by the new Government should be a measure which so directly concerns themselves.
I venture to repeat those weighty words used by the right hon. Gentleman, who also said, on that occasion:
That the sole and only argument for this Bill, the only ground on which it could be put forward in the public interest, is that it is going to facilitate the move rapid return of Members of the Treasury Bench buck to the House of Commons.
This is the whole question, and I have heard it adumbrated time after time. Until the formation of these Coalition Governments there was not a right hon. Gentleman on either side of the House, including the present Leader of the House and his colleagues, who was not dead against any interference with the right of re-election on the occasion of the appointment of Ministers. When under the stress of war emergency, first in 1915 and then in 1916, a similar measure to this was introduced, it was cut down in each case to two months, and not nine months as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. There was not a speaker, whether it was the Attorney-
General in the first Coalition Government or Lord Cave as Attorney-General in the second Coalition Government, who did not make it absolutely clear, and I could quote their words, if necessary, that they could only justify such a measure as this on the ground of war necessity, and Lord Cave said that in no circumstances must this be taken as a precedent. Lord Finlay also said that he was far from asking that the safeguards of this old rule should be thrown away. Other representatives of the Government said that if for any reason it should ever become necessary to propose the entire abrogation of this rule, in no circumstances would it be justifiable to take all the stages of the Bill in one day. Therefore, I assume we are going to have ample opportunities to consider this Bill in all its phases.
I have been wondering what really is at the back of this proposal. The General Election concluded on the 28th December. I am quite sure that for some little time after that date, in the case of the Ministers who are particularly concerned in this Bill—there is no reason why, for example, the Secretary for Ireland, the Labour Minister, and the Pensions Minister, and the others could not have gone to the country weeks ago and have been re-elected, and they might have been back here in their places to-day. [An Hon. Member: "The writs had to be moved!"] I believe, Mr. Speaker, that yon might have issued your writ—

Mr. SPEAKER: No writ could have been issued until last Tuesday.

5.0.P.M.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I am glad to have the great privilege of saying that I was wrong, and an old philosopher once said, no man need ever be ashamed of that because he is only saying in another way, "I am wiser now than I was before." I accept Mr. Speaker's correction that it could not have been till last Tuesday that the writs could have been moved. If at the General Election the Prime Minister had indicated to the country that these particular gentlemen were to be members of the new Administration, then the electors would have had something to vote upon. I suggest that if we refer to the election address of the new Minister for Labour we shall not find any great labour policy there, or any indication of any special capacity or interest on the part of that distinguished Gentleman in the labour movement. I have the
privilege of his acquaintance. I know he is a brilliant man who has done magnificent war work, but this is a matter in which the Labour party are more concerned than I am, and if they are content to have an eminent member of the Scottish Bar chosen to decide questions which are not industrial, commercial or trade questions, but specifically and exclusively questions of labour, on their behalf then one cannot complain. With regard to these Ministers I have not gone through all of them, but I assume they are either Celtic, Hibernian or alien, because I understand the Saxon race is not qualified for office as a general rule, but really in view of the declarations made when this Bill was previously before the House I say that no specific case has been made out for altering the law. The right hon. Gentleman says, "We have just come back from the country; we have an overwhelming majority and why trouble us to go back again." If we were discussing this Bill on the eve of a General Election and this were an old and moribund Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman would say, "What is the good of worrying us now? We are shortly going to the country. Let us wait until the General Election." I say seriously that there is a fundamental distinction between the appeal that a man makes to his constituency as a private individual and the question of his qualification in the mind of that constituency for office under the Crown. Once become a Minister of the Crown and, as has been said before, your whole relationship towards your constituents undergoes a fundamental change. I do not know therefore why this power should be taken away from us. Most of these Ministers, I believe, have fairly substantial majorities. What leads you to anticipate that there will be any opposition? If there should be opposition and if a man has not private means—some individuals of some nationalities who have means might even think it a great hardship—it might be a very reasonable provision to put into the Bill that a Minister who goes back to his constituents merely because he has taken office should have his expenses paid by the State. That, however, is a Committee point. This is a new Parliament of new Members, and many of them perhaps are too disposed out of a sense of loyalty to the Government to
fall in with anything that may be proposed, but in a day or two we are going to revise the Rules of Procedure and to have half the power of this House taken away. At the same time we are going to arm the Prime Minister with this power. I do not say it as a debating point, but because I believe it is substantial. If, when the Prime Minister's present cares and anxieties are lessened, when peace is in sight and he is able to give more time to the affairs of this House, he finds that he wants to reorganise the Government which he formed after the General Election and which an inspired Press told us might not be permanent in its character, perhaps making the First Commissioner of Works Minister of Education and other changes of that kind, he would have the power under this Bill to go to Downing Street one day and address a letter to every one of his colleagues, except, of course, the Leader of the House, whom he would never think of changing, saying, "I do not want you any longer. I am going to have a Government entirely of my own"—Heaven only knows, he might put even me in!—and he would be under no necessity of going to the country. It is not impossible that the time may come when the Prime Minister may wish to do this and to get rid of nearly all the talents now on the Treasury Bench, and it is not right that the House should be deprived of the opportunity of knowing how far a new Minister has the trust of the country, and it is not right that the constituencies of the country should be deprived of the opportunity of answering the question, "You elected this gentleman to go and vote for the Government as an ordinary private Member; do you think he is a man who can perform great administrative work?"

If the Leaders of the Labour party, who are deeply interested in this matter, had said that they were satisfied, I do not think that I should press my Amendment. I see that at least one old antiquity is to remain—the Chiltern Hundreds. I am interested in that because some years ago His Majesty did me the honour of appointing me one of his stewards. The fact that I have never attended the office and never taken any step to ascertain what are the duties of the office does not differentiate me from many other Ministers of the Crown. But when you are amending the law, why not get rid of the whole lot? When a man has had enough of the House,
why should he not resign? I am not at all sure that as a steward of the Chiltern Hundreds I am not entitled to sit on that bench. I am not going to assert my right—the bench is rather overcrowded as a rule. As far as I am concerned, I do not want to be an obstructionist or a nuisance or a captious critic, and, if the Leader of the Labour party and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) had accepted the Bill, I should have assumed that was a fair indication of the feeling of the House, although I know that many hon. Gentlemen opposite have grave doubts about it. If a compromise can be effected, let it be effected, though I do not know that we want twelve months. I do not want to give the Prime Minister time to come back from Paris and reconstitute his Administration without submitting it to the country. If a reasonable compromise could be effected I would not stand in the way, but there is no indication of it, and therefore I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given notice.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: I am glad that a period of time has elapsed since the Leader of the House addressed us, because when he sat down he had so convinced me that I was wrong that I was wondering whether it was necessary that there should be an election of any description. He suggested that once having gained the confidence of the country, all that was necessary to protect the country from the House of Commons was the House of Lords. Practically everything that is to be said against allowing this Bill to become law has been said, with one or two exceptions. Under the Courts Emergency Act a Bill which was introduced into this House during the War, it was made legal for Members of this House to trade with the Government as well as to hold office of profit under the Crown. I should have liked the question to have been raised by one of the hon. Gentlemen who preseded me, as to whether it is proposed to allow Members of this House to become members of His Majesty's Government and either to continue or to proceed to trade for their own personal profit with the Government. It is a most important matter. Many complications may arise. If a new Minister had to appeal to his constituents before taking office, it would give the Opposition an opportunity of making some inquiry into his shareholdings or commitments to see whether or not he was a suitable man to hold the par-
ticular office to which the Prime Minister had been pleased to call him. I think I may claim to have had some experience of by-elections. I have found that they are a pretty healthy indication of public feeling. It does not matter whether you win a seat against the combined parties of this country or not. Providing you make a good fight, you so shake the confidence of the Government in itself that probably the thing for which you are fighting eventually receives the attention of the Government. That is one reason why I think nothing should be done to prevent what one may call a healthy by-election.
One might almost liken a by-election to a clinical thermometer which the Prime Minister applies to the body politic. It is now suggested that it should be broken, so that it should not be possible to take the temperature of the public at any time that is not convenient to the Government. When a new Minister is appointed he generally takes the place of a Minister who has departed, and if the Minister has not departed through death he has generally done so owing to a difference of policy. Under these circumstances, it might be just as well for the Government, through the medium of the new Minister or the proposed Minister, to be able to explain to the public just exactly what is their policy. I am sure that the House and the public agree that this is a fairly representative House of Commons, but it came in on a very great wave, and I venture to suggest that it was won by the Prime Minister's promises. I have here a book in which the Prime Minister's promises are carefully tabulated. There are 1,211 distinct promises which were made by the Prime Minister at the last election, and, having spent two weeks of my time indexing and cross-indexing these promises, I feel it would be a personal injustice not only to myself but perhaps to other hon. Members who may have similarly occupied their time to be deprived of the opportunity of reminding the right hon. Gentleman of them at a by-election. It is a book which day after day will become of increasing interest in this House, and should the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) wish to have access to it I shall be only too pleased to let them have it.

Major Earl WINTERTON: I am now a fairly senior Member of this House, having had fifteen years service in it, and I have always paid particular attention to by-elections, having participated in the
majority of them prior to the War in the capacity of a speaker. I came down to the House this afternoon by no means convinced that it was undesirable that the Bill should pass. I was, on the whole, opposed to it, but I was prepared to vote for it after hearing the reasons which might be put forward by the Leader of the House. I am bound to say, after having heard my right hon. Friend's speech, which I am sure he will not think it disrespectful of me to say, I thought particularly unconvincing, and the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, which with great respect I may say showed great knowledge of the subject his historical references to Sir William Harcourt was really a great point of great moment—that I am certainly not prepared to support the Bill unless the Government are prepared to put in a time limit of six or nine months. I can assure the Government that a great many of my hon. Friends hope that they will see their way to adopt that proposal. The Government have chosen an extraordinarily favourable opportunity for bringing this Bill forward. There has been no such great change in Parliament since 1906. Consequently, there are a large number of Members who have no experience at all of the procedure of the House, and let me say, as an old Member, that I do not think this question of procedure can be dismissed in a few lines in a newspaper. It is of far greater importance than that.
It is easy enough to write paragraphs to the newspapers saying that certain procedure of the House of Commons should be swept away, but let us see first what the change is that is going to be effected as a result of sweeping away that procedure. Is it going to be for the good of the House, and will it expedite public business? It does on the face of it seem unnecessary that, immediately after a General Election, a number of Ministers should have to go back and ask for the approval of their constituents on their having taken office. But it would be a very different matter a year or two later. The right hon. Gentleman stated, not very cleverly, the difference between a by-election at which a private Member is standing and one at which a Minister seeks to be re-elected. I say the difference is absolutely fundamental. The Leader of the House mentioned that in 1904 there were twenty-two by-elections, and in 1905 twenty-three. Now, I got in at a by-elec-
tion in 1904, and although I have taken part in a good many contests this was one of the roughest, and I only secured my return by a majority of 600, in comparison with my present majority, which exceeds 13,000. At that time the tide was running extremely strongly against the Government. Still, the by-elections in that year had very little effect.
But then came the year 1905, when a gentleman, who was a Member of this House, had to seek re-election on nomination as Junior Lord of the Treasury. I am referring to Mr. Gerald Loder. To the amazement of the Government and of the organisers of the party, he was defeated by a very heavy majority, and I am convinced, from what I know of all the circumstances of the time, that that election had more effect than any other incident which occurred that year in inducing the Unionist Government to go to the country in the autumn of 1905 instead of waiting, as it was currently reported they intended to do, till after the Session 1906; it made them realise that the inevitable political catastrophe could only be made worse by delay. Then I turn from that to the case of the right hon. Gentleman who now holds the office of Secretary for War. He was defeated at North-West Manchester. Some of my hon. Friends in the House will remember what was the attitude of the Liberal Government in 1906. They had an enormous majority and acted very aggressively towards the Opposition, but as a result of that by-election their attitude was changed, and no one will deny that that particular election had a great influence on the course the Government took and rendered it far less arrogant than it had been. That shows the difference between a by-election at which a private Member is standing and one at which a Minister seeks authority from a constituency to take office.
In considering this Bill there is another point to be borne in mind. A great change in the Constitution is proposed by this Bill. It will upset a principle which has been in force since the reign of Queen Anne. The House should ask itself, in the first place, whether the Bill will remove any grievances that may be felt by the public or by the electors, whether it will secure greater efficiency in Parliament, and whether it is likely to lead to a more speedy realisation of the will of the people. I do not suppose that one elector in ten thousand, or indeed one in one
hundred thousand, feels any grievance with the law as it stands, while as to the point whether the passing of the Bill is likely to lead to a more speedy realisation of the will of the people, I think again the answer must be in the negative. As regards the second question, which is perhaps of more importance, whether the change means more efficiency in Parliament, there again I feel the argument put forward by the Leader of the House on the subject of the strain which the present state of the law imposes upon Ministers is by no means convincing. It is unquestionably unfortunate, because the number of Ministers is very great at the present time, but I do not think the advantage to be gained by keeping the law as it stands is outweighed by its possible bad effects on the nerves and temper of a Minister who may be returned to this House after a somewhat heated by-election. There is no doubt that a Minister coming straight from a constituency has the advantage of knowing what the people feel. In these days the machinery of Government is so complicated and so complex that the average Minister never has time to visit his constituency. It was very different in the old days when autumn Sessions were the exception rather than the rule, and when Parliament sat for a much shorter period of the year. Now very little opportunity is afforded him of doing so. Therefore I think it would be of the greatest value that a Minister who changes his office should be compelled to go to his constituency. It would also be to the benefit of good administration.
With regard to the point that nomination to some offices does not involve re-election, my answer is very simple. In my humble judgment every Member of Parliament on being appointed to any office whatsoever should have to go to his constituency. I desire to call attention to what I consider is a very grave position at the present time. There were in the last House no fewer than 100 Members who enjoyed, in some form or other, an office of profit under the Crown, altogether apart from those hon. Members who were serving on war duties. A regulation—or General Routine Order—has recently been brought in, I am very glad to say, preventing officers actively serving in the Army and Navy sitting in this House, although they may be transferred to the Reserve. There are a great many hon. Members of this House who, although not members of the Government, are holding
appointments in the public service. I could mention one whose work involves the handling of vast sums of money and of dealing with very important questions. Another hon. Gentleman practically controlled the whole wool buying for the Government. Not only do I disagree with the abolition by this Bill of the principle that certain offices cannot be held by hon. Members without going to their constituencies, but I go further and say that no hon. Member should be allowed to accept office, whether it carries with it a seat on the Treasury Bench or not—because after all offices such as I have referred to are practically ministerial offices—without being called upon to seek re-election. If we adopted that course we should be returning to a practice which unfortunately has been dropped in recent years. I happened recently to be reading in my rather extensive Parliamentary library a Debate in the eighteenth century in this House on Burke's Establishment Bill, which dealt with matters analogous to this. In the course of that Debate Mr. Burke used a phrase, which I thought strangely true to-day and certainly more true than it was ten years ago, when, speaking of the Establishment Bill of 1780, he said a particular office had been established or created in the year 1768, on purpose to introduce a Noble Lord into His Majesty's Household. I think that remark would apply to many cases to-day, and for that reason alone, as well as in view of the multiplication of offices, I think it would be most unfair for this Bill to be passed at the present time.
I would much prefer an amending Bill bringing all offices under the existing Bill. I really can see no good reason for passing the Bill in its present form at this time. There has during the General Election been a great deal of talk with regard to the greater independence of Parliament. I hope the Government will consent to allow the House to give its decision on this matter without being subjected to any pressure from the Whips. If they will not agree to that I for one shall vote against the Bill. It is very unfortunate it should have been introduced at this period of the Session, before the majority of hon. Members have had any opportunity of realising the pros and cons of the principle which the measure proposes to abolish. It fundamentally alters the constitution of Parliament before hon. Members have had any opportunity of considering that important question. At any rate I very much hope
that the Government will consent to insert a limit of six months or one year into the Bill. By so doing they will conciliate many of my hon. Friends, and also, I gather, the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) who has moved the Amendment.

Major LLOYD-GREAME: As a new Member and not, perhaps, well acquainted with the effect of procedure, I should like to urge the House very strongly from the point of view of the public outside, to insist upon the Government putting a time limit upon this proposal. There is a perfectly clear distinction to be drawn between the case of the re-election of Ministers immediately after a General Election and during the period when Parliament has been running for six months or a year. I do not agree with the argument that a constituency which has elected a Member of Parliament at a General Election is likely to reject him because he has become a Minister of the Crown. The constituency is probably likely to feel highly complimented. I should therefore support this proposal provided it is restricted to six months after a General Election. In the case of Ministers who have just taken office, particularly the Minister of Labour, who must have continuity of work at the present time, it would be disastrous to send them to fight elections in the country. Obviously, anomalies dating from the time of Queen Anne ought to be abolished, but I do not think it follows that the anomalies should be abolished by making all offices come down to the level of the more fortunate. The more fortunate themselves should be put in the same position as the original offices of profit. This question cannot be regarded apart from the Rules of Procedure which the House is going to be asked to consider to-morrow. I say at once that I shall support those Rules when they are moved. It is absolutely necessary that some such rules should be passed and that some experiment of that kind should be tried, because it is a lasting reproach to this House that so many measures, on which, I believe, there has been substantial agreement for many years between both sides of the House in principle, have been shipwrecked in the cross-currents of purely party politics. In order to prevent that, it is essential that some such Rules of Procedure should be introduced. I cannot conceal from myself,
however, the fact that once you introduce these new Rules of Procedure you are going very directly to increase the power of the Executive and to reduce the control of the House of Commons. For that reason I would ask the Government to limit the scope of their present proposal. Their proposal is a restriction, both on the general power of the House of Commons, and what is even more important, upon the general power of the country outside. I therefore appeal to the Government not to carry the proposal any further than is absolutely necessary at the present time.
Apart from the question of the Rules of Procedure, this old convention is very much in the interests of the public. The Prime Minister said, quite rightly, during the General Election, that it was impossible to have Bills brought forward at a General Election, and equally that you could not have a General Election every six months. That is perfectly true, but, at the same time, the Debate on the Address has shown us that there are certain quite broad questions of policy, as distinct from detailed application, upon which either the Government have not made up their minds, or, if they have, they have not yet shown their hands. The obligation upon a Minister to go to the country and seek re-election has been the recognised opportunity of the country to express its opinion after a time upon the conduct of the Government in the application of its principles. One right hon. Gentleman said that we would have other by-elections, but the ordinary by-election with a new man coming forward is a totally different thing from the by-election of a Minister Take the case of a candidate who stands for the first time at a by-election in the middle of a Parliament. What is the first thing he does? He says that he totally disagrees with all the things the Government has done which are unpopular. I have spoken at by-elections at which candidates have been prepared to do that with the greatest alacrity and with considerable success. A Minister at a by-election cannot do that; he is standing not for what he promises to do in the future, but in order that the past record of the Government can be tested by the electorate. It is perfectly true that it is only in one constituency, but it is a very useful example, and the constituency for which the Minister stands may be taken to be a very fair reflex of the opinion of the whole of the country.
No one will deny that the issues which were put before us at the last election were necessarily of a very general character. I sincerely hope that this Parliament is going to hold together and to do the work which its supporters hope for, and that it is going to falsify the prophecies of some of its critics. But it is quite possible that a time may come when some of the Prime Minister's colleagues can no longer support him. It is even more possible that a time will come when the Prime Minister can no longer support and sustain some of his colleagues. When that does come it will be much fairer to the Prime Minister, as well as much fairer to the country, when a reconstruction is brought about, that the country shall be able in these test cases to express its opinion There was a secondary argument put forward by the Leader of the House which did not impress me very much—I say so with all respect. It was that we were putting a Minister to great unnecessary expense by sending him down to fight such an election. May I point out, in the first place, that in order to meet cases of that kind the cost of elections has been greatly reduced, and an election to-day costs far less than it did previously? May I also point out that if the Minister who goes down to fight an election is fortunate enough to be elected, he will be able to pay his expenses out of he first year's salary of his office? If he fails to be elected, then I am sorry for him, but undoubtedly the practice which I am supporting now has been amply vindicated. The Leader of the House said he did not want to put any discredit upon professional politicians. That is perfectly reasonable. There should be no discredit upon a professional politician for having his expenses paid for him, although I do not think it necessary to go so far as the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) has suggested and pay out of public funds, because I am convinced that as long as the Upper House remains the penultimate destination of plutocracy the party chests will never be wanting funds to enable such candidates to pay their expenses. I hope the Government will meet the very real body of opinion in the House on this question, and that they will meet us by way of compromise. I also hope that private Members will not look at the matter from the point of view of what may possibly be their convenience at a later date. I suppose that every private Member
carries the portfolio of a Minister wherever Ministers do carry their portfolios, but even in an Administration which the exigencies of the War or of the political situation have swollen to the size of a Sanhedrim there would not be room for all the supporters of the present Government. In any case, I hope hon. Members will look at the matter not from the point of view of particular convenience, but from the point of view of general interest. I most sincerely want the Government to stand well with the country, for I know how difficult are the times that lie ahead, and for that reason I would appeal to them not to give even the least appearance to the country that they are trying to create a new vested interest for themselves in the country. They are quite strong enough to stand on their own merits. I would therefore appeal to them to do so, and not to oppose the six or nine months' limit.

Mr. FRANCE: I hope that an impression has been made by the interesting speech to which we have just listened on the mind of the Leader of the House, and that the Attorney-General has informed him that during his inevitable absence from the House there has been rapidly in the course of formation in the House a Coalition Opposition, and that there has not been one speech made yet upon the occasion of the introduction of the first Bill of this Government which has supported the measure. This Coalition Opposition has interesting features about it. As a fairly old Member of the House as things go nowadays, I never expected to find myself in entire agreement with every word which fell from the Noble Lord (Major Earl Winterton), with whom on many previous occasions I have differed, nor did I expect at this early stage to agree almost entirely with every word which fell from the hon. Member for South Hackney, (Mr. Bottomley), without having come more under his powerful eloquence. The Leader of the House ought really to understand that everyone in the House at the present moment agrees with him that it would be desirable that present Ministers should be relieved from the task of going back to the country. Without calling this a serious situation, it would be advisable to take due note of the general feeling in the House that a limit of six or nine months ought to be inserted. I hope it will be definitely moved either from the Government Bench or by someone in
charge of an Amendment. Notice ought to be given of so important a constitutional change in the procedure of this House and of elections. The House agrees with the main part of the speech of the Leader of the House with regard to the inconvenience to present Ministers. Why, then, cannot he take the general feeling of the House and adopt the suggestion made, not in any antagonistic spirit, but in order to assist him to get on with the business. The great change so strongly objected to should not be forced upon a reluctant House.
The speech of the Leader of the House did not carry such conviction as he does generally. He was as persuasive but not so convincing as usual. His reminiscence drew from the House some degree of sympathy with him and some for the country. He said that he himself had not been promoted to an office which very modestly he did not describe, and we were unable to deduce who was his right hon. Friend, unknown, who was privileged to fill it. He commented on the fact that there were only two by-elections of this class in two years. Does not that go to show that the Government, afraid of the operation of this particular rule, dared not go to the country upon this issue of the elction of Ministers? If a Government is not strong enough, and not brave enough, to go to the country in order that a Minister of the ability of the right hon. Gentleman should occupy a seat on the Front Bench, it is quite obvious that the Government is no longer in possession of the confidence of the country, and it is very desirable, therefore, that such a rule as this, which protects the electorate from any improper or unwise moving of Ministers or reconstruction of Ministries, should not be abandoned hastily. The House should agree to the proposal of a time limit to enable the present Ministers to retain their seats in this House, but no further steps than that should be taken at this stage.

Mr. DEVLIN: I was not so sanguine as the hon. Member (Mr. Bottomley) when he prophesied the other night that this would be a very interesting and independent House of Commons. I have somewhat changed my mind while listening to some of the speeches which have been delivered this afternoon, and I rejoice most heartily that in some of the new Members. especially the hon. Member for Hendon (Major Lloyd Greame), we have
some manifestation of an independent spirit materialising in brilliant expression of opinion. I am more sanguine than I was that we are going to have perhaps a better House of Commons than we had before. Many hon. Members who have spoken to-day are perhaps not aware that this attempt to confiscate one of our great constitutional rights is only part and parcel of a slow and gradual attempt which has been made to rob Parliament of its great authority, and now to steal from the electorate the constitutional privileges which belong to it. I have watched for the last four or five years different attempts made, and successfully made, to rob the House of Commons of its privileges. I remember in the last Session of Parliament when there could not be forty Members found to come here and make a House for the Government, although there were 100 paid members of the Government outside those who occupied seats on the Ministerial Benches. The most fatal thing I have noticed in modern Constitutional and Parliamentary affairs is the gradual attempts not only to corrupt Parliament, but to corrupt the electorate. Members of Parliament, who no one knew were paid, were paid large salaries, and we have an instance only to-day of an attempt which was made during the last election, not to corrupt Parliament, but to corrupt the electorate by giving these unemployment grants which were an attempt to deal with a great economic problem, but were also intended to rally people to the support of those who ruled the country in the last Parliament. Another attempt is being made to undo a thing that Parliament should see ought to be done, and that is to compel Members of this House, when they assume Ministerial once, to submit themselves to the judgment of the electorate. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bonar Law) said to-day that it seemed to him not only an inconvenient but a ridiculous thing to ask a man who is fresh from the poll and who has received the sanction of the electorate to go again in the course of a few weeks, but there is this distinctive difference. The hon. Member for East Herts said this Parliament was returned upon the promises of the Prime Minister. I think he said he kept a book in which were contained 1,056 promises. There has been time for perhaps ten or fifteen of these promises to materialise. We want to know how they have
materialised. Knowing how they have materialised, we want to know what the electorate thinks of them.
But I am not so much concerned with the purely conventional and constitutional operation of these suggestions as I am with a matter infinitely more vital to those whom I represent, and that is the question how Ireland stands in this matter. One of the offices lately filled was the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland. That office was given, according to constitutional and democratic procedure, to a Scotsman. It was always the custom here for either an Englishman or a Scotsman to be Chief Secretary for Ireland. I put this question to the Prime Minister, and I put it to his representative, who is present. I wanted to know what was meant by the paragraph in the King's Speech referring to Ireland. If that paragraph put into the mouth of His Majesty was an honest statement that you proposed to deal with the Irish question you ought to have told us how you were going to deal with it. If you did not intend to deal with the Irish question but merely intended to make the King responsible for camouflage, which was to throw dust in the eyes of the Peace Conference, it was a characteristically dishonest performance on the part of the Government. When we invited the Leader of the House of Commons to explain that paragraph—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I think the hon. Member is under the impression that this is last week.

Mr. DEVLIN: Indeed I am not.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member please keep to the Question of the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. DEVLIN: That is precisely what I am trying to do. I want to know what is the Irish policy of the Government. I cannot get it in the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman will not answer me. I wanted an interpretation of that paragraph in the King's Speech. The only way in which I could get it was when I went down to the constituency in Scotland of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and found out from him there what was the Irish policy of the Government. This is a new House of Commons. Many hon. Members have virgin minds on the Irish question. I hope they will be as receptive as their Minister. I put aside altogether the question of Home Rule or a broad and wide national solution of the Irish problem, and I come to vital and immediate
questions which do not divide Irishmen, and which, I think, would receive the sanction of Englishmen. We asked to-day what was to be done about housing. There is to be a Housing Bill introduced for England. We asked in the House of Commons where did Ireland come in in this transaction, and they told us they did not know. We asked what was to be done in regard to Ireland in the matter of public health, and they did not know. We asked them about demobilisation, and they did not know. We asked them about reconstruction, and they did not know. It was not that they were dealing with a small section of the Irish national representation. Even hon. Members opposite from Ireland could not get any answer either from the right hon. Gentleman or any of his friends, and if we cannot get an answer from the right hon. Gentleman and those who have taken upon themselves to control the affairs of Ireland we are entitled to say to Mr. Macpherson—a good old name to rule Ireland—"If you are to be the Irish Chief Secretary, having full control of the Government and administration of Ireland, we are entitled to ask you where you stand, and so are the constituents, where Ireland comes in, not only on the wider question of government, but on such questions as reconstruction, demobilisation, public health, and housing." I would refrain from interfering in these constitutional and Parliamentary questions if I could get any other opportunity of riveting the attention of the House of Commons upon this scandalous anomaly. You will not allow us to rule ourselves, and we cannot open the lips of a single Minister when we press him to tell us the truth as to what they are going to do for Ireland. If I were a Unionist I should say the thing is indefensible. The only way we could maintain the Union would be to do all those things for Ireland which a native Parliament would do. It is not that they despise Home Rulers. They despise all Irishmen, and for that reason I am here to know what is the policy of the Government. I am here to ask that there should be an election in the constituency of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in Scotland, that we may still have that constitutional method of information which is denied to us in this House.

6.0 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): There was a very marked contrast between the speech which has just been delivered and the
other speeches which have been delivered during this Debate. With the exception of that one speech the real argument against this Bill is that it erred in not containing a time limit. The hon. Member (Mr. Devlin), in that small portion of his speech in which he permitted himself to speak on the question before the House, said the object of the Bill was to confiscate one of our constitutional rights. I waited with expectation to hear how he would justify that strong attack. If I followed him it was that he had endeavoured in vain to obtain information as to the Irish policy of the Government from the Leader of the House in the regrettable absence of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Does he not perceive that if this Bill had been carried into law a little time ago one of the fortunate results of it would have been that my right hon. Friend would be here? It is precisely one of the inconveniences of the existing system that Ministers, and it may be many Ministers, are kept out of the House just at the time when they are most wanted here. With the exception of that single speech, what has struck me in listening to the Debate was the large amount of common ground in the various speeches. One of my hon. Friends said a Coalition Opposition was in the course of making. If this be the Coalition Opposition, let us see how far we agree. It is said, and it is not denied, that the existing system gives rise to great public inconvenience. It is said, and it is not denied, that the existing system gives rise to great and unnecessary expense. It is said, and it is not denied, that the existing system sometimes leads to the selection of Ministers upon grounds other than fitness, and it is said, and it is not denied, that the reason for the Statute of Anne has long since ceased, and the only possible argument for the existing system must be a quite different one. That is the amount of common ground. The Leader of the Opposition, while he agrees that what he called the principle of the Bill was right, regretted that there was not a time limit. I find a certain difficulty in appreciating what exactly that principle is, which is right in its essence and becomes wrong at the end of nine months. That was the contention which was put forward. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Labour party was content to base his criticism of the Bill upon the
solitary case of an individual Minister—the Minister for Labour. If I followed his argument whether the principle of the Bill was good or was bad, he for his part was content to base his opposition to it upon the claim that at this particular time, in the midst of so much unrest, the Minister of Labour should go back to his constituents. Could there be a greater waste of time? Could there be a more unfortunate example? As to the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), who was the parent of the proposal that this Bill should be rejected, his argument was of a most illuminating kind. He wound up with the suggestion that the proper course was to compromise on a time limit, but he began with the extraordinary assertion that the Government was ill-advised in making this the first measure of the Session. If this measure, which is to admit to the House those Ministers who are waiting to come in, is to be brought forward at all, is it not obvious that it should be brought in at the earliest possible moment? How can it be said that the Bill is to be postponed, and at the same time how is it to be argued that the operation of the Bill is to be limited to a very short time in order that it may only apply to the period immediately following the General Election?

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I did not propose the time limit. I said that if the House thought that was a desirable compromise I would not stand in the way.

Sir G. HEWART: The suggestion for compromise has come from various sources, and it is really that argument, if argument it be, which is raised against the Bill. I have only one observation to make about it. It does not go to the root of this measure. It is not directed against the proposal now before the House, "That the Bill be now read a second time." Whatever the merits of the time-limit may be and whether it is right, as has been suggested, that the Bill should be confined to six, nine, or it may be twelve months, that is a question eminently fitted to be considered in Committee.

Mr. FRANCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance at this stage, that on the Committee stage the Government will favourably consider limitation? That will greatly affect the vote on this measure.

Sir G. HEWART: Certainly, I give that assurance.

HON. MEMBERS: What is the assurance?

Sir G. HEWART: The assurance that in Committee the Government will favourably consider the question of introducing into the Bill a suitable time-limit.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: And will accept it.

Sir G. HEWART: If I meant accept it I would have said accept it. I adhere to the phrase I have employed, that we will favourably consider the adoption of a suitable time-limit, and under these circumstances I ask that the House should give the Bill a Second Reading.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: My objections to this Bill are that it is wrong and not that it requires Amendment. I can speak with the more freedom because in the last Parliament I blocked and successfully opposed a Bill brought in for achieving exactly the same end as the Bill before us to-day. My opinion is that it is wrong because the electorate have received from the candidate certain pledges and when he joins the Government he has to modify those pledges and to accept absolutely the policy of His Majesty's Government. Therefore, whatever the cost, the Member should go back to his constituents in order to make his new pledges secure. That is the principle upon which people are sent back to their constituents for re-election when they take office in the Government. Every constituency in this country expects its Members to exercise his independent judgment and every constituency elects its members as an independent member of Parliament, but we know perfectly well that when the Member joins the Government he votes as the Government Whips dictate. For instance, on the Labour Amendment to the Address the other day we saw two ex-Labour members, who are now Ministers, voting against their party, and quite rightly doing so, because they are members of the Government and. therefore, must vote with the Government. Everybody knows that directly anyone becomes, I will not say a member of the Government only, but a private secretary to any member of the Government, he sacrifices his own independence and becomes a voting machine with the leaders of the party. That has always been so; but now when there are far more Ministers in this House than ever before and far more private secretaries attached to those Ministers, I think it is absolutely essential that we should retain
the one privilege of saying that those Members who enter His Majesty's Government in certain historic offices must go back to their constituents and stand as members of the Government instead of as an independent Member of Parliament. It seems to me that on that ground it is right that anybody should go back to his constituents when he becomes a member of the Government.
It has been urged that that is very unfair upon poor Members of Parliament. As a matter of fact it is not in the least hard upon a poor Member of Parliament. In nine cases out of ten Members who stand for re-election as Ministers have no contest. Their constituents are content with the change from an independent Member to a member of the Government. Therefore, they are re-elected without expense. In former times it is true that even an uncontested election cost about £150. That was true in the last Parliament, but under the new Reform Bill an uncontested election costs nothing at all. Therefore, it is infinitely easier than before to seek re-election. I have never heard of any Member of Parliament who was so poor as not to be willing to obtain £2,000 a year by risking an election at the expense of £500. As a matter of fact, we know perfectly well that the emoluments attaching to office are a very large attraction to people to take office. There is no fear of its being difficult to get people to take office because of the expense of a by-election. You will find people only too willing to take office even at the risk of that expense.
My objection to the Bill is that it is wrong in principle to convert an independent Member of Parliament into a member of the Government without the constituents being consulted as to whether in their opinion that was advisable or not. I go further and I say that the whole principle of the Bill, when it was passed in the time of Queen Anne, was that Parliament at that time was being filled with placemen. You have only to look at the records of that time to see the number of sinecures to which Members of Parliament became attached. It was done under both Tory and Liberal Governments during the hotly contested years of Queen Anne. Members of Parliament, directly they were elected, took office and became the paid hacks of the Government. It seems to me that that danger is more present to-day than it has been in this country since the days of Queen Anne. We are faced with
an enormous number of placemen. We are threatened now with a new Ministry of Commerce, a Ministry of Public Health, a Ministry of Fisheries, and a new Minister for Wales. If we are to have these new Ministries set up we shall have a Secretary of State and an Under-Secretary, and very often two Under-Secretaries. These positions have been created at a rate which has never been equalled in the history of this country, and at this time, when Ministers and posts are being created at this rate, to abrogate the old right of the electors of this country to say whether or not they are content with their representatives to become placemen seems to me to be a singular anachronism. Every argument of right and justice must perpetuate the old system of seeking re-election and to extend it as the Noble Lord opposite suggested, to everybody who takes office in the Government. I do not think you would find any great difficulty in getting members. It is rather absurd for this Government, which commands such an enormous majority in this House—for nearly seven-eighths of the Members are supporters of it—to say that this system of sending prospective Ministers to their constituents limits the Government's choice. They have a far larger choice in this House than any previous Government in my memory and, therefore, the limitation seems to me a very small one.
It seems to me that in politics you have a constant struggle going on between democracy on the one side and efficiency on the other. The argument by the Attorney-General is that unless the Government is free to select whosoever it will from the whole of its supporters, irrespective of whether they hold seats by large or small majorities, the efficiency of the Government is limited. There is something in that argument. You have the instance of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Charles Masterman), a man whom it was very desirable to include in the Government. As a result he lost his seat and ceased to be a member of the Government and to have any influence in politics. It may possibly limit the efficiency of the Government, but, as I have said, you have always a struggle between efficiency and democracy, and I would be the last person—and I hope many right hon. Members on that bench would—to object to anything which in these days of increasing bureaucracy limits the efficiency of the democracy of this country in making
its voice heard. Every by-election is a miniature General Election. Every by-election is reported fully in the daily papers, and every argument used at that election is promulgated all over the country. It is not only an education for the constituency, but an education in politics for the whole country to have a by-election. The results of by-elections are indications to the Government of what the people think, which the Government do not get in any other way whatever. I do not want to see the number of by-elections reduced. I want to see every possible opportunity for the people of this country making their voice heard and indicating to the Government what they want. We rely, I fear, too much upon the public Press to say what the people think. The people who have the votes areless voiced in the Press than they have ever been before. If you rely upon the party Press, if you rely upon the moneyed Press of this country as to what the people are thinking, you are going to go wrong altogether. A by-election is a thermometer which tells you really what public opinion is, far better than any inspired leading articles in the Press.
We have always the struggle going on between democracy and efficiency, and I hope that this House will see that we do not sacrifice everything to efficiency. It is quite possible we might have the best Government in the world if we had an autocrat. If we made the Prime Minister the autocrat of the country, and he appointed all his Ministers and they were uncriticised and he created all the Departments and run this country as Germany was run, as an autocratic monarchy, it is possible that we should have a more efficiently run country than at the present time. But efficiency is not everything. It has led to the smash up of Germany as it is now. Efficiency which smothers individual expression of opinion—[Laughter.] I am perhaps exaggerating, but that is the direction, and it is well to look at the direction in which any legislation is going. We do not want legislation which leads perhaps to greater efficiency if at the same time you are sacrificing any control which democracy exercises over the Government. Democratic control is often bad, often stupid. If you have a democratically governed country, you have obviously one which is less efficient than an autocratically governed country, but in the long run democracy pays. Though
you may see the argument in favour of efficiency in a particular measure, yet when you sacrifice the liberties of the people in the long run it is bad for the Government and the welfare of the country. I hope for these reasons that my hon. Friend and those below me will press this matter to a Division. This is a bad Bill: it is aimed directly against the interests of the electorate of the country, and in favour of what I believe is a very small gain in the efficiency of the country. The Act which you are repealing has been on the Statute Book for 200 years. Every Government has tried to get rid of it and failed, because independent Members of Parliament have felt instinctively that it was a right thing that a Member should not pledge himself to his constituents and then join the Government and sell those pledges without having to face the electorate. I hope that this Bill will not pass into law, and that we shall retain upon the Statute Book one of our old constitutional safeguards.

Mr. A. SHORT: Speaking for the first time in this House, if I contravene any of its ancient traditions, I hope to be the recipient of that generosity for which the House is justly renowned. I have listened to this Debate with exceeding interest, and the course of the Debate reminds me of the friendly rivalry which was exhibited on this side regarding the Leadership of the Opposition. But I think that if the Government brings in any more Bills of this character it will have to look for the Opposition on the benches opposite. The proposal embodied in this Bill, and which can be embodied in Bills of a similar character, will meet with strenuous opposition from all Members who love progress and consider the interests of real democracy. I agree entirely with the Attorney General, that if the principle of time limit is wrong, if it is wrong in essence it is wrong all the time, and the matter should not be compromised on that. But I do not propose in offering opposition to this Bill on behalf of the Labour party to go into questions of a constitutional character, because I am unfamillar with the procedure and constitution of this House, but I believe that the policy suggested in this Bill will be regarded by people outside as an indication of the iron heel of the dictator, and an indication that the Government propose to use their huge majority to ride roughshod over the rights and privileges of the people.
I believe that the Bill itself will be regarded by our people, particularly in view of the grave unrest that exists, as a sign of political weakness on the part of the Government rather than as a sign of political strength. I should have thought that this Government would have been anxious to face an electorate in elections of this character in view of the severe, and shall I say justifiable criticism, which was voiced in the Press and in the country with regard to the appointments of right hon. and hon. Members to the various Ministerial positions. These appointments have been regarded as placing round men in square holes and square men in round holes. I have heard it suggested in some quarters that the appointment of some of these Ministers has been due entirely to a recognition of the fact that they were the college chums of some of the members of the Government. Ability, experience, or political standing in the country appear not to have been necessary so far as these appointments were concerned. If this Bill is passed, and Ministers fail to appear before their constituents for election, it will be taken, I believe, as a cowardly policy on the part of the Government, and it will be considered in the country that they are afraid in some cases to justify their appointment before the bar of public opinion. But I regard the proposals of this Bill as a violation of one of the customs of our country, and a custom which is in harmony with democratic thought and the spirit of our times, and which should be retained in the interests of clean and wholesome government.
I regard these by-elections, arising out of the appointment of Ministers, as political safety-valves which enable the electors to express their opinions upon policies and principles which are vital to their interests, and on matters which the Government should not attempt to force upon the public, as it were, against their will. But there is another reason. With such a power in the hands of the Government of the day, it will be possible for the Government to thrust upon the country any person in the shape of a Minister whose appointment will not only be distasteful to popular opinion, but might outrage every sense of public and political decency. What I believe the people of this country desire at this stage is courageous leadership, leadership which will encourage the confidence of the people in the Government of the day, and I should imagine that no
object would be better calculated to secure for the Government the retention of the full co-operation of the people in all important matters than to allow hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who may be appointed as Ministers to face their constituents, seek re-election, and defend the policy of the Government of the day. I thank the House for the generous attention and indulgence which it has extended to me, and trust that this Bill will be strenuously opposed.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the Leader of the House whether we are right in thinking that he proposes on the Committee stage to introduce an Amendment limiting the operation of this Bill within a certain time after the election of the Minister? If that is so, I think that the Government have met us very fairly, and that we ought not to continue the Debate. One other question. Clause 2 enacts that Ministers who are appointed without portfolio should also be exempted from going to the country. It is a new thing to appoint Ministers without portfolio, and is only done in very exceptional cases, and I would ask the Leader of the House if he would drop this Clause in the Committee stage. Where it is necessary to appoint a Minister to a particular office I think that the country ought to have an opportunity of saying what it thinks as to the matter. Subject to that I think that the Government has met the House in a reasonable manner, and might now have the Second Reading.

Mr. BONAR LAW: With the indulgence of the House I should like to say a word or two on this matter. I was struck to find from the hon. Member opposite (Colonel Wedgwood) that the fight is between efficiency and democracy.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: You will find that in Plato and Aristotle.

Mr. BONAR LAW: If that is so, it is a bad look-out for democracy. I think that the experience that we have had in this War gives us some reason to hope that if there are defects, as undoubtedly there are, in our system, it has undoubtedly merits which on the whole outweigh these defects. Now, I do ask the House not to treat this as if it were an attempt to ride over an Act of Parliament or to stamp on the country with the iron heel of the dictator. It is simply a question of what is the best thing to do in the public in-
terest, and nothing more or less. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast. He gave us an indication of the kind of spirit in which he approaches this subject. It is quite obvious that he regards the views of my hon. Friends who come for the first time to this House and the test of their character as something to be exemplified by the extent of their hostility to the Government. I do not, of course, regard it in that way, but I am bound to say that it is no surprise to me to find that there is an attitude of criticism. I should not only have been surprised, but disappointed, if it had been the other way. All the Government have a right to ask or expect is that on these questions Members will come to them with the desire, after they have been elected, to do nothing to delay our work, so as to enable us to get on with the business for which we were elected. That is all I would like to say in regard to the principle. As regards the question of my right hon. Friend, we do not regard the question of time limit as something on which the Government are bound to stand or fall. Nothing of the kind. We are simply taking this as a question of what is best, of which the Government need not necessarily be the best judge, and I am quite ready to say now that what my right hon. Friend intended was this—and I myself said it in introducing the Bill—that in spite of the fact that there are strong arguments in one direction, the disadvantages are greatly outweighed by the advantages in the other. I hope that the House will now give us the Second Reading of the measure, and that they will then allow us to go into Committee. [An Hon. Member: "Straight away?"] I hope so. We stated that we proposed to take all the stages to-day. I would make an appeal to hon. Members. I think it is reasonable to ask the House to give us the Second Reading, and that then we should go into Committee. On behalf of the Government, what my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General proposes to do is, that if an Amendment is moved making this apply to a certain time, we shall leave that, without pressure of any kind by the Whips, to the free decision of Members of the House.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What about members of the Government?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can say that there will be no pressure on them by the party
Whips, and if any of my colleagues, looking at the matter as something perfectly open, took the view that I was wrong, I would not feel in the least hurt if they voted the other way.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask whether that opinion just expressed will be conveyed to all the absent members of the Government?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know how that could be done.

Mr. DEVLIN: Could not the Whips go out and ring a bell?

Mr. HOGGE: I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has not referred at all to another very important question referred to during the discussion with regard to Clause 2 and just mentioned by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). Clause 2 is a very vital one. It deals with the appointment of extra Ministers without portfolio. We were told the other day about the creation of two new Ministries, to which no one can have any objection, because sufficient work has accumulated to make a case for those two Ministries. There is now in the Government one Minister without portfolio, the right hon. Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) who is at present in Paris, and this Clause gives the Government the right to appoint two other Ministers without portfolio. There are three offices in the Government now which are practically Ministers without portfolio. There is the office of Privy Seal and that of Chancellor of the Duchy and positions of that kind to which there are salaries attached but in connection with which there is no departmental or official work. Some of us would like to know before we give the Bill a Second Reading and agree to accommodate my right hon. Friend with regard to the Committee stage, what is the attitude of the Government as to taking this fresh power to appoint Ministers without portfolio. That question arose during the War and appointments were made to which the House agreed, but there is no reason why a Minister should be appointed in peace time except in the perfectly natural way in which the new Minister for Ways and Communications is going to be appointed. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to state whether the Government in the same way as on the time limit are prepared to allow the House the same rights on Division on the second Clause as has been suggested with regard to the first.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot give that promise and for this reason. It would necessitate re-election of at least one Minister [An Hon. Member: "That would be a terrible thing!"—because obviously what applied to one would have to apply to all. I believe they cannot be paid without a Vote of the House and the House will have that hold over them. We can discuss the matter in Committee, but I do not think that is a reason for refusing now to give us the Second Reading.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I have heard many surprising propositions in the course of my Parliamentary life, but I never heard such a surprising proposition as that we should agree to make such a great constitutional change as that proposed in this Bill in the course of a single sitting. That is what the Leader of the House proposes. But on the question that the people of this country shall retain their right periodically to consider the policy of the Ministry, I believe the House would be most unwise to abandon such a right. I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite who do not possibly share my views, that there is something far bigger in this Bill than party interests on one side or the other. If this Bill become a Statute, it will apply not merely when a Conservative or Coalition Government be in office, but as well to a Liberal or Labour Ministry in office. If this House be unwise enough, without consulting the people, or rather behind the back of the people—since this question has not been considered by them—to give up that right of constant supervision, and by constant supervision of constant control, over the Executive and policy of the country, then I think the House will be doing one of the most stupid and rash things which I have known any House of Commons to do. On this question of procedure, a sense of duty compels me to express my views to the House. The Leader of the House in his opening speech used a most extraordinary argument. He said that this measure was originally passed to protect the House of Commons against the prerogative and usurpations of the Throne, and that that controversy had come to an end long ago, which is quite true, and that there was no other struggle left except a struggle between popular opinion and the Government. He said also that if you give this right of appealing to the opinion of the nation, that then it is not a conflict between the nation and the Government, but between the nation and the House of
Commons. Did anybody ever hear a more extraordinary argument than that? Has not the nation the right to review the House of Commons as well as the Executive? The House of Commons may lose, and justly lose, the confidence of the nation as much as the Government of the House. "Oh," but says the right hon. Gentleman, "the Government could not remain in existence unless it had a majority of the House of Commons," and that therefore this was an appeal to the people against the House of Commons. But is it not an extraordinary new doctrine that the nation has not the right to protest and act and vote against the House of Commons as well as against the Executive?
I have known plenty of Houses of Commons that have lost the entire confidence of the nation and where the nation indicated that by its vote. I quite admit there are inconveniences in the present system. I remember in the very first House of Commons I was in we were left a fortnight without the Executive, because the Government of Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues had to be re-elected. The only representative of the Government during that time was Lord Richard Grosvener, and when we had to deal with a hot argument on Mr. Bradlaugh or some other subject there was no answer to be obtained. Lord Richard Grosvenor, who was a man of promptitude rather than resource, ended the argument by moving the Adjournment. That, of course, was an absurd state of affairs. In the course of this Debate there has not been a single Member who has spoken—except the Leader of the House and the Attorney-General, that is to say, the Government—who has not resisted the principle of this Bill, and has not at the same time agreed that some concession should be made. I think it is absurd that when a Government has come fresh the electorate and taken office that the country and the House of Commons should be left without the Government for some time. But that does not interfere with the fundamental constitutional principle that the people of this nation have the right and have the duty to constantly watch and to constantly criticise, and to constantly pronounce judgment upon the Government and the Parliament of the nation.
I feel very strongly for that reason on this question. I cannot describe myself as an admirer of everything in our Constitution, but I can say this, that in the
close and intimate relationship between the public opinion of this nation and its Executive we are a model to the constitutions of all other countries. I was in America recently, and, as on many former occasions, I got into constant discussion with my American friends as to whether their constitution is freer than ours. I held, and hold, that our Constitution is freer than theirs. As I tried to put it to them, our Constitution is mobile, while theirs is stationary. In the United States they have their men elected for a certain length of time, and the country has no opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon the policy of those men. The country may pronounce an opinion in America upon the policy of the President of the United States, but the President remains President for four years, whatever may be the views of the country. Their Cabinet Ministers do not appear, except by request occasionally, in the Legislative Chambers of the United States, with the result that you have an executive almost, or quite, independent of the Houses of the Legislature.
I have always said to the people there, "If you want to realise the difference between the American constitutional methods and those of this country, I would put it in this way. The President of the United States is, to a large extent, independent of the decisions of your electorate for four years of office, the Congressmen are independent of the public opinion of your nation for two years, and the Senators are independent of the opinion of your nation for six years." "Now," I have told them, "if yon come to our Parliament—and this is why I think it is a much more democratic institution than yours—you could see, as I have seen, a Ministry, apparently omnipotent and eternal at a quarter to three in the afternoon, the hour when Parliament meets, and in its grave at seven o'clock or half-past seven o'clock." I have seen it myself. The Ministry of Lord Rosebery came down at a quarter to three o'clock one day to the House, and at half-past seven o'clock, by the vote on the famous cordite question, that Ministry went out of office. That was inconvenient to the Ministry, but I hold that that was a vindication of the fundamental principle of our Parliamentary system, that the House of Commons ought to be omnipotent over the Executive, and that the nation ought to be omnipotent over the House of Commons.
There have been three cases in my time that I can remember of the rejection of Ministers on taking office. One was the case of the late Sir William Harcourt when he was made Home Secretary, and then defeated. Then there was the case of the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary for War, when he was beaten in North-West Manchester, and there was the case of Mr. Masterman, defeated for Bethnal Green. While we may regret such cases, can anybody say that the constituencies had not a right by voting upon these gentlemen and their election to office to pronounce their verdict upon the Government? Supposing a Minister is secure for a year after election, after that period the country has had an opportunity of judging of the quality of the Government, and in voting for or against a Minister they are voting for or against a policy of which by that time they have had some experience, and I implore the House, in the interests of the nation and of our Parliamentary traditions and liberties, not to give up this right in a hasty manner.
Supposing anybody wants to discredit parliamentarianism. A great many men in the country, and large sections of opinion in this country, want to do that. What lies at the back of some of these unauthorised strikes that we see in various parts of the country? They are not encouraged by the leaders of trade unions, but by the idea which is rampant through Europe to-day. It is not merely in England, it is also in France to a certain extent, and, of course, all over Russia. The fundamental idea at the root of all this form of labour disturbance and unrest is that working men must seek their rights by direct action. That means by syndicalism, the universal stoppage of labour, the joining together of all the different labour organisations of the country to hold up and paralyse the nation; and it is argued by the syndic lists too, which is a very powerful school, with great philosophers behind it as well as great agitators, that direct action of any kind is a far more effective weapon for gaining their rights than by trusting to the deoayed methods of parliamentary discussion and decision. I pray the House not to encourage that feeling in the country, for it is a strong weapon in the hands of those who denounce parliamentarianism that one of the first measures of this House of Commons
should be to take from the people the weapon which gives them the right of periodic examination and decision on the acts and policy of Parliament.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I should be prepared, with the leave of the House, to ask permission to withdraw the Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman opposite would say that he would bring no pressure to bear upon his supporters if in Committee I attempted to add the words "at any date between 1st January and 31st December, 1919," after the word "profit" in Clause 1.

Viscount WOLMER: May I utter a protest against the proposal of the Government to take the Committee stage immediately? I think most of us are ready to give the Second Reading, but to ask the House to go at once into Committee without any Members having had the time to table Amendments is an extraordinarily bad beginning. I think the House wants to give the Government the Bill, though not in exactly the form in which it is proposed, but it is a really important constitutional question and not by any means the light question which the Treasury Bench would like the House to believe. It is the abrogation of a constitutional principle that has been maintained for good or for ill for 200 years, and it is being done at a moment when the whole British Constitution is in a state of flux, when we have no Second Chamber, and when the Government admittedly are considering proposals for the reform of the Second Chamber and for producing an amendment of the Parliament Act. This vital change in our Constitution is a matter which, I think, ought to be taken at any rate according to the usual practice of Parliamentary procedure. Then, for the first time, so far as I am aware, for a great many years, the Government propose to introduce a constitutional change which is retrospective in effect. It may be necessary in this case, but I think that is a very bad principle and a very dangerous principle. It is dangerous that the Constitution should be amended in the interests of particular individuals who have taken office knowing perfectly well what the Constitution is, and about whom no special urgency can be alleged, as was undoubtedly the case during the War. I think it is really a serious proposal that the Constitution, which has been pre-
served since, the days of Queen Anne, should be altered, when there is no House of Lords, with retrospective effect, in order to get particular individuals out of a difficulty which every other Minister for the last 200 years has been subjected to, and that the Government should ask the House of commons to give them Second Reading, Committee stage, and, for all I know, Report of such a Bill on the same day. I really believe the Government would make more rapid progress with this Bill if they followed the normal course of Parliamentary procedure and enabled us to table our Amendments so that they

could be printed and circulated to-morrow morning, and thus give hon. Members and the Government time to see and consider them, than by trying to rush it through in this indecent fashion. After all, the Government have other important business to-night. They have, the Aerial Navigation Bill, which the House can proceed with at once, and I would like to ask my right hon. Friend, with all respect, if he will not be content with the Second Reading to-night.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 42.

Division No. 2.]
AYES.
6.56 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Henderson, Major V. L.


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
Hennessy, Major G.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Cope, Major W.
Henry, Sir Charles S. (Salop)


Ainsworth, Capt. C.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Amery, Lieut.-Col. L. C. M. S.
Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)


Archdale, Edward M.
Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Bagley, Captain E. A.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.


Baird, John Lawrence
Curzon, Commander Viscount
Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.


Baldwin, Stanley
Davidson, Major-General J. H.
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.
Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)
Hinds, John


Barnett, Captain Richard W.
Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.


Barnston, Major Harry
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy


Barrie, C. C.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Hood, Joseph


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Dean, Com. P. T.
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)


Beck, Arthur Cecil
Denison-Pender, John C.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Dennis, J. W.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bellairs, Com. Carlyon W.
Denniss, Edmund R. B.
Hopkinson, A. (Mossley)


Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (G'nwich)
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.
Hughes, Spencer Leigh


Bennett, T. J.
Dixon, Captain H.
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Dockrell, Sir M.
Hurd, P. A.


Betterton, H. B.
Donald, T.
Inskip, T. W. H.


Birchall, Major J. D.
Doyle, N. Gratton
Jackson, Lieut.-Col Hon. F. S. (York)


Blades, Sir George R.
Duncannon, Viscount
Jameson, Major J. G.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Jephcott, A. R.


Blane, T. A.
Edgar, Clifford
Jesson, C.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham)
Jones, Sir E R. (Merthyr)


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bowyer, Capt. G. W. E.
Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Kiley, James Daniel


Brackenbury, Col. H. L.
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Falcon, Captain M.
Knight, Capt. E. A.


Breese, Major C. E.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Knights, Capt. H.


Bridgeman, William Clive
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lane-Fox, Major G. R.


Briggs, Harold
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Law, A. J. (Rochdale)


Brittain, Sir Harry E.
FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)


Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)
Flannery, Sir J. Fortesque
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Foxcroft, Captain C.
Lewis, T. A (Pontypridd, Glam.)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lindsay, William Arthur


Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes
Galbraith, Samuel
Lister, Sir R. Ashton


Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)
Ganzoni, Captain F. C.
Lloyd, George Butler


Burn, T. H. (Belfast)
Gardiner, J. (Perth)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)


Butcher, Sir J. G.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Lonsdale, James R.


Campbell, J. G. D.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Lorden, John William


Campion, Col. W. R.
Glanville, Harold James
Lort-Williams, J.


Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)
Glyn, Major R.
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred
Goff, Sir R. Park
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland. N.)


Carr, W. T.
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.
Lyle, C. E.


Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)
Grayson, Lieut.-Col. H. M.
Lynn, R. J.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Greame, Major P. L.
Lyon, L.


Cayzer, Major H. R.
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
M'Callum, Sir John M.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)
Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar
M'Curdy, Charles Albert


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Gregory, Holman
M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)


Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill
Greig, Col. James William
M'Donald, D. H. (Bothwell, Lanark)


Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender
Griggs, Sir Peter
M'Guffin, Samuel


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Guest, Major O. (Leices., Loughb'ro'.)
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)


Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.
Hacking, Captain D. H.
M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)


Cohen, Major J. B.
Hallas, E.
Macleod, John Mackintosh


Colvin, Brig.-Gen. R. B.
Hambro, Angus Valdemar
M'Micking, Major Gilbert


M'Neill, Ronald (Canterbury)
Ramsden, G. T.
Thompson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Maddocks, Henry
Raper, A. Baldwin
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Raw, Lt.-Col. Dr. N.
Tickler, Thomas George


Manville, Edward
Rees, Sir J. D.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Moles, Thomas
Reid, D. D.
Wallace, J.


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Rees, Captain J. Tudor-
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. C. T.
Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.
Richardson, Alex, (Gravesend)
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)


Morden, Col. H. Grant
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Morrison, H. (Salisbury)
Roundell, Lt.-Col. R. F.
Whitla, Sir William


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Rowlands, James
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Mosley, Oswald
Samuel, A. L. (Eye, E. Suffolk)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


Murchison, C. K.
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir Rhys (Banbury)


Murray, Lt.-Col. Hn. A. C. (Aberd'n.)
Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
Wilson, Capt. A. (Holdness, Yorks.)


Nall, Major Joseph
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, W.)


Newman, Major J. (Finchley, Mddx.)
Seager, Sir William
Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Seddon, J. A.
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Newton, Major Harry Kottingham
Seely, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. John
Winterton, Major Earl


Nicholson, R. (Doncastser)
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)
Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)


Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)
Shaw, Capt. W. T (Forfar)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)


Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander
Woods, Sir Robert


Norris, Col. Sir Henry G.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Worsfold, T. Cato


O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.
Steel, Major S. Strang
Yate, Col. Charles Edward


Parker, James
Stephenson, Col. H. K.
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Pearce, Sir William
Stewart, Gershom
Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Pinkham, Col. Charles
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Pownall, Lt.-Col. Assheton
Sturrock, J. Leng.
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Pratt, John William
Sugden, Lieut. W. H.
Younger, Sir George


Prescott, Major W. H.
Surtees, Brig.-Gen. H. C.



Pulley, Charles Thornton
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—capt.


Purchase, H. G.
Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)
F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.


Raffan, Peter Wilson




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Harbison, T. J. S.
Sexton, James


Arnold, Sydney
Hartshorn, V.
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hayward, Major Evan
Sitch, T. H.


Benn, Capt. w. (Leith)
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Billing, Noel Pemberton
Hogge, J. M.
Spoor, B. G.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Irving, Dan
Swan, J. E. C.


Briant, F.
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Cairns, John
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Devlin, Joseph
Lunn, William
Tootill, Robert


Donnelly, P.
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Waterson, A. E.


France, Gerald Ashburner
M'Lean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
O'Connor, T. P.



Grundy, T. W.
Redmond, Captain William A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.


Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton)
Bottomley and Colonel Wedgwood.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg to move, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."
In doing so I should like to say that I have decided not to proceed with it tonight. I do not know if I am acting wisely or not, but in all these matters, since I have been in the position of Leader of the House. I have preferred to make the mistake of doing what a large number of hon. Members wish rather than of forcing my view on them.

Bill accordingly committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.

AERIAL NAVIGATION BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (General Seely): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
In rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, I will point out that it is a temporary measure, as is explained in its title. The reason why we have asked the House to pass this Bill is that unless we get legislation of this kind it is impossible to permit civilian flying at all. We are advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that we have not the power in the Air Ministry to make Regulations for civilian flying without legislation. Therefore, I commend this Bill to the House as being necessary in order to enable the science of
flying to be pursued other than by the military. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State shall have power to make certain Regulations, and, in order to forestall criticism of those Regulations, I would say that the object of them is solely to secure the reasonable safety of the public. We have no desire to impose upon civilian flying any restrictions which would in any way tend to prevent people from evolving new types or doing anything which they think will advance flying. But, of course, it is necessary to have power to secure the safety of the public, and this we shall obtain by the provisions of the Bill. The reason why this is only a temporary measure, and why it is proposed only to take power to act under it until the first day of next year, is that it will be necessary later in the Session, by permission of the House, to introduce a larger Act regularising flying in accordance with the provisions of a Convention, which we hope will be agreed to by the Allied Powers, at a Convention which will shortly meet in Paris. We have already made considerable progress in agreement with France, America, and other Allied nations, and I trust we shall come to a general agreement as to the regulation of flying. This will then be embodied in a Bill which I shall ask leave to bring before the House. In the meantime, this Bill will enable us to give permission to civilians again to commence to fly. I earnestly hope it may have a quick passage through the House, for he would be a rash man who set any limit to the possibilities of flying in the future; and the sooner we permit those who are interested in it to fly, under proper safeguards for the public safety, I think the better for all concerned.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The speech of my right hon. Friend will disarm any criticisms that I might have been inclined to make about this Bill by the very frank admission on his part that it is merely a temporary measure. But I would like to point out to the House that for the first time, new Regulations are going to be brought forward dealing with civilian flying of possibly the most far-reaching character. The Regulations that are going to be made by my right hon Friend at the present moment, though only temporary, will probably form the foundation of the subsequent Regulations or of the Bill which he propose to introduce later on. With great humility, I do want to pro-
test against this form of legislation—because it is really legislation—being carried out at the whim of the Secretary of State. If my right hon. Friend had introduced a Bill—and I have no doubt he knows there is a Bill already prepared dealing with this question—we should have been delighted to give it most rapid progress through the House. Instead of that, he simply introduces an enabling measure to enable himself or the Secretary of State for Air to make any kind of regulations he thinks fit, and those regulations will be in force for a year, and probably form the basis of future legislation.
These regulations are bound to interfere with the liberty of the subject in every possible way. They are bound to deal with registration, and the grant and suspension of licences for flying. As my right hon. Friend knows, prior to the War, no licence was required. The old Acts of 1911and 1913, whose rights are carefully preserved, were merely Acts enabling the Secretary of State to prescribe certain areas over which flying should not take place, one being, of course, London itself. I do not know whether the House is aware that there has been sitting a very strong Committee, which has drawn up a model Bill. Probably my right hon. Friend has that Bill and knows the contents of it. The House, however, does not know it. It was the strongest Committee—although I was a humble member myself—I ever sat upon. Representatives of the War Office, Navy, Air, Foreign Office, Treasury, Home Office, Board of Trade and His Majesty's Customs, were upon it. In addition, there were some flying men and some lawyers. The whole question of the regulation of flying in this country was gone into, and a most elaborate Bill was drawn up. I think we sat for over a year dealing with this measure, which, I venture to say, could be brought into the House and carried almost in a single sitting. It was completely accurate in all its details. Instead of adopting that, however, my right hon. Friend comes forward and asks us to give him, or his Secretary of State, the right to make any kind of regulation he thinks fit.
Although my right hon. Friend has disarmed me by his statement as to the temporary character of his Bill, there are one or two questions I want to ask him as to the regulations he is going to make, more particularly with regard to flying over other people's property. While it may be perfectly right for Parliament itself to
take away the right of a man to prevent flying over his own property, I suggest it is not right and proper to leave those rights merely in the hands of a Secretary of State. What provision is he going to make? At the present moment I very gravely doubt whether, by an Order made under this Bill, it would be possible for the Secretary of State to take away the right of any man to prevent flying over his own land. Of course that matter must be dealt with. At the moment the law undoubtedly is—I do not want to press the legal point of view—but the position undoubtedly is that a man who owns a piece of land or house owns the air above it right up to the sky. [Hon. Members: "No!"] I am very sorry there are any hon. Members who do not know the law. I thought all Members of Parliament would have known that. That has got to be dealt with, and it is desirable that it should be dealt with, because we could not have one eccentric owner of a particular piece of land, which might be under an aerial highway, stopping flying over it. But is my right hon. Friend proposing to deal with that by regulation under his Bill? If so, I suggest he should consult the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether it would be possible to deal with that by mere regulation under the Bill. Then what is my right hon. Friend going to do about territorial waters, or what one might now call territorial air? He preserves in his Bill territorial rights, but a three-mile limit is no earthly good in regard to the air.
I think my right hon. Friend should give a little move information as to the lines which the regulations are going to take. He takes power under the Bill to provide for "the registration, identification, inspection and certification of aircraft." My right hon. Friend, by regulations, is going to take upon himself the certification of every aircraft which is allowed to fly in this country. He knows that an aeroplane may be certified to-day and may be quite unfit for use to-morrow, and yet that aeroplane is to be let loose with a Government certificate, which any passenger who chooses to go in the aeroplane is bound to treat as an official certification of its air-worthiness. I venture to suggest my right hon. Friend should consult the proposals of the committee to which I have referred, which suggested that merely the type of aircraft should be certified as being an air-worthy type, and that it would be quite out of the
question to attempt to deal with the certification of the air-worthiness of any individual machine. Then, of course, the same thing applies to "the licensing, inspection and regulation of aerodromes". Is he going to give a certificate with regard to every aerodrome that is perfectly safe, because that, I take it, is what certification means. When I was on another Committee on the Air Force a little time ago we came across certain aerodromes which the Committee unanimously condemned as unsafe, but of which the military authorities felt bound to continue the use. Naturally at that time, during the War, we civilian members of the Committee could not possibly protest, but there are aerodromes to-day in this country which are not safe for ordinary purposes, and I think my right hon. Friend must take very great care as to what steps he is going to take about certifying certain individual aerodromes.
The last point I am going to ask is this: What steps is he going to take by his regulations, or otherwise, in regard to the question of damage by aeroplane accident? Suppose, for instance, an aeroplane comes into collision with another aeroplane and both men are killed, there is no possibility of finding out who is at fault. The machine drops and kills someone on the King's highway, or does damage to one of His Majesty's subjects. At the present moment everybody knows that if damage occurs on the highway from a motor car or ordinary vehicle, the injured person has to prove there was negligence. I do not know whether that is going to be the case in regard to aircraft. It is a very serious question indeed. That Committee, to which I have referred, reported that, in their opinion, an aeroplane should be treated as liable for all damage it creates, and that it should not be necessary for anybody to prove, or attempt to prove, negligence, because it would be impossible. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend has considered these points in the regulations he proposes to make, but before the House parts with the Bill I think I may be entitled to say, for the benefit of the newer Members, that the Clause in the Bill which says that the regulations shall lay for twenty-one days on the Table of the House, during which time an Address may be presented to His Majesty, is a mere farce. There is no real possibility, as my right hon. Friend knows, of objecting to these things laid on the Table of the House, simply because one
can never get the time of the House in order to do it. Therefore, before parting with the Bill, I ask my right hon. Friend to be a little more explicit and give us a little more information on the points I have raised.

Mr. MOSLEY: I must crave the indulgence of the House this evening not only on the usual account of a maiden speech, but I must ask it to condone in me that very serious offence which the great Chatham once described in this House as "the atrocious crime of being a young man." That dictum from the mighty past weighs rather heavily upon me this evening from the consciousness that I am to-day the youngest Member of this Assembly. The House, however, is considering a subject which, I think, we may claim as belonging principally to the youth of to-day, but, we may say with some confidence, to all generations of the future. I have not that experience which is possessed by some other hon. and gallant Members in this House; in fact, my total experience of flying amounted only to about a year, and I must confess, like thousands of others, that my brief contact with the air, and, on one occasion, at least, with her sister element the earth, left a rather more decided mark upon my body than my activity imprinted on the development of aviation. As one, however, who has an undoubted belief in the potential aerial supremacy of our country, I feel impelled this evening to draw attention to the greatest pitfall which could lower us from our present undoubted superiority in the air.
The war-time epidemic of bureaucratic control has had this nation in its grip for a long time past, and we may deduce from the Bill that we stand in very grave danger of its paralysing influence being extended to embrace the youngest child of the British public, our newly-found Air Force. It is universally admitted, I believe, to-day, that State control is beneficial in some spheres where the free play of individual competition and interest may jeopardise the safety and comfort of the community as a whole, but my contention is that the air is the very last conceivable sphere of human activity to be brought too closely beneath the eye of the clerk in Whitehall. We find in this Bill the very ominous phrase, "Inspection and certification of aircraft." There is a shrewd suspicion in the mind of the trade concerned, that inspection infers the arbi-
trary right of the State to supervise and intervene at every step of the daily business of the private exploiter of aviation. Surely the easiest and most effective means to the attainment of the desired end—the safety of the public—would be the imposition of the very heaviest penalties in any case of accident which could be attributed to negligence. This, of course, would not only prove less irksome to the private exploiter of aviation, but would actually contribute a greater guarantee to the public that every precaution had been taken. By adopting this course the Government would lay the whole onus of responsibility for public safety upon the shoulders of the company, who would naturally take every step to see that their own staff was kept at a proper state of efficiency, rather than run the risk of mishap, which would not only ruin their business, but actually curtail the liberty of those responsible.
If the Government undertake the work of supervision, little or no blame can be laid at the door of the company should anything go wrong. I am confident that the public would prefer to repose its safety upon the thoroughness and reliability of the work of the man with a halter around his neck in the shape of heavy penalties if anything go wrong than entrust their person to the tender care of some Government official or inspector who works upon the time system. All new types admittedly must be tested by the Government before being released for the purpose of public conveyance, but if this word "certification" imply any desire on the part of the Government to confine firms engaged in this work to any particular officially approved design. I am confident that the restriction will strike a very severe blow indeed at the industry of aerial manufacture in this country. Imagine in a few years' time some enterprising manufacturer introducing a novel design to the Government Department. Consider the hunt that would ensue through dusty tomes for precedents, and the abrupt refusal when it was discovered that no analogous type has been used in the great War.
Perhaps I exaggerate, but I am confident that many Members of this House will agree with the view that officialdom seldom approaches a novelty with any great predisposition in its favour. I have no very great knowledge of technique, but those who possess that knowledge inform me that it is quite possible that the distance
covered by aerial progress in the next decade may be commensurate with that traversed in the last. Surely that ought to open a whole new vista of the utmost development. If one, however, may judge our expectations from officialdom in the future in the light of past kindnesses received from the same quarter, then British manufacturers will embark upon this great new stage in their business with a millstone round their necks. No great exercise of the imaginative faculty should be required to foresee the day when the aviation tank and the aeroplane will have driven the Infantry and other similar units from the battlefield, whilst the furious speed and mobility of the aerially-armed plane, with a weight-lifting capacity which will enable it to carry heavy armaments, will have banished the battleship and the merchant ship from the ocean. If this view be correct—and it is widely believed I understand amongst people who should know—our official perspective in regard to aerial matters appears to be somewhat deficient. In fact, the suggestion that the present position of the air and the War Department should be reversed appeals to be not wholly outside the realms of humour.
In his speech on the Address the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Churchill) told the British public not to be led into too extravagant expectations in regard to the future of the air. As I have explained already, my political memory is not long, but I have always been led to believe, in fact I have almost been brought up on the idea, that what the right hon. Gentleman suffered from was a paucity of that invaluable political asset called imagination. On this occasion, however, I must warn him that predecessors of his at the War Office fell into exactly the same error, in refusing to credit the possibilities of such rapid extension of the activities of aircraft as we have seen. That regrettable occurrence was described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Col. Moore-Brabazon) in his speech on the same day. It was only one of a series of incidents of this nature. In fact, at every step of aerial development that Cerberus at the gate of progress, Officialdom, has refused to credit the possibility of the next step. The development of this great new sphere of our ascendancy, which admittedly contributed largely to the recent glorious termination of hostilities, was achieved almost entirely by
individual effort and sacrifice, in the face of an official lethargy and passive opposition which have seldom been rivalled even in the long record of these things which stand to the credit of British bureaucracy.
In dealing with this great problem success may mean the greatest tribute that has yet fallen to British initiative and energy, while one failure will in all probability mean the hot surrender of that hard-won commercial supremacy of the race, the fruit of centuries of individual effort and enterprise. Let us always, then, remember the empiricism of British bureaucracy, which has invariably been failure, and that British individualism has frequently pulled success through. Our Colonial Empire stands a glorious memorial of British individualism, and by no means one of State intervention. The peculiar genius of our race has always manifested itself in strange new enterprises where the individual stood alone, uninspired save by a spirit of adventure in entering new realms and ranges of human activity. In fact, we may say that from the days when Queen Elizabeth refused to countenance the adventurous schemes of Drake, down to the comparatively recent struggle to impress upon the official mind the supreme importance and immeasurable possibilities of aviation, our history has been one long story of individual enterprise and success surmounting every obstacle thrown in its path by official ignorance and apathy. I venture this evening to suggest, with all respect to the Government, that they should safeguard the public in every possible way by the imposition of the most stringent penalties in cases of proved negligence; that they experiment in matters of design by means of that very excellent staff and machinery which they now possess; but that, above all, they allow full play, without irksome or unnecessary restrictions, to that supreme manifestation of the genius of our race—individual initiative and enterprise—which has so frequently proved successful, while, on the other hand, the activities or in activities of State authority have proved a lamentable failure. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow the private manufacturer to look to the Government for protection and inspiration rather than for restriction and oppression.

Sir F. FLANNERY: The House is to be congratulated upon the accession of the hon. Member for Harrow, and upon the
fresh and fluent contribution that he has made to the Debate to-night, with the suggestion in it of the contributions he will make to future Debates. I should not have ventured to speak, certainly not from the standpoint of my hon. Friend, who is the youngest Member, while I am sorry I am amongst the older Members of the House, but that I desire to speak from the standpoint of one who has been engaged during the War in the manufacture of aeroplanes, and who has all his life had to do with exact forms of Government inspection and Government interference, so-called, which is set forth in the Bill, and to which the hon. Member for Harrow appears to have a rooted objection. No one, so far as I have heard, has yet referred to the fact that the general provisions of this Bill are identical with the existing provisions and experience of some generations now of the relationship of the Government of the manufacture and carrying on of navigation by sea, and travelling by railway and railroad on land. No omnibus can run the streets of London without having had a certain amount of Government inspection and Government certification. No passenger ship, in fact no ship of any kind, can navigate the sea without having passed the inspection of a Government officer in respect to its safety so far as foresight and skill can secure it for those who will take passage in such ship. No railway train can possibly start, even with the hon. Member who has spoken on board, without every precaution having been taken by signals, and in the construction of the locomotive and coaches under Government inspection, for the purpose of ensuring the safety of the passengers. Is it then to be suggested that with all those precedents and all that experience of these precautions and the safety which has arisen from them, and which is well known, notwithstanding disadvantages—which I admit—that this new and extremely dangerous type of navigation in the air is to be set at large without any precaution by way of Government inspection to secure the public safety?
I venture to say that the Government would be criminally and morally responsible for the many lives that were at stake if we were to adopt such a principle as that which my hon. Friend has risen to advocate. I sincerely hope that the Government will, of course, agree to Amendments which will be moved in Com-
mittee, but I trust they will stick to the general principle of the Bill, and will see that proper precautions by way of inspection and certification, the testing of materials, and the examination of designs will be undertaken. I do ask my right hon. Friend to take this from me, as one having life-long experience in the matter, that he should do everything in his power to prevent the strangling of improvements which at one time so discredited the Board of Trade in their system of inspection, both as regards railways and steamships. There was a period, thirty-five years or so ago, when no improvements, however obvious, however well-vouched for, would be considered by the Board of Trade until, in some illicit way, such improvement had been tried and had been demonstrated to be satisfactory. When this Bill becomes an Act let such organisation as my right hon. Friend will, I hope, establish be guided by the highest possible and the most progressive scientific men that he can find. Let there be an experimental department if necessary. Let the Government officials not be obstructionists, but lead in the van of progress and encourage rather than obstruct. Having done that, having put their imprimateur upon that which is safe and their ban upon that which is unsafe, they will contribute to progress, and ensure the safety of those who will travel by what, I believe, will be one of the regular sources of transit in the immediate future.

Lieut.-Colonel MOOREBRABAZON: I apologise for again troubling the House so soon after my recent speech, and I have been told that it is not a very proper proceeding. However, I would not like this opportunity to go by without saying one or two words upon this Bill. Aviation may be divided under two heads, military and commercial. The other night we discussed a little the military side of it, and the Prime Minister, I regret to say, has caused a very excellent Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill), to lead a double life, for he is not only Secretary of State for Air, but he is also Secretary of State for War. To-night we are looking upon this subject more from the commercial side rather than from the military point of view. We welcome any Bill and will help any Bill such as this which does allow civilian flying, for that is a great thing which we want, and want quickly. We must recognise and this House must realise, however, that we are giving to the Government a blank
cheque in aviation, for that is what this Bill really means. [Hon. Members: "No!"] Under the system proposed the manufacturers of this country must stop immediately, but I understand that the Under-Secretary for Air has already consulted with the trade and has promised some modifications.
I want to ask for two assurances on points of general principle which, if the right hon. Gentleman will agree to, I am sure we can allow this Bill to pass. I want him to allow these people to design their own machines without control. Up to the end of the War no aeroplane was allowed to go up unless it had received the complete assent of the experts of the Air Ministry. I maintain that now we have got comparatively to peace, initiatives and all sorts of designs must be allowed to be developed wherever they like. Inspection has not helped aviation as much as people think, for it started badly. Lord Kelvin said that dynamic flight was an impossibility. The Government designed machines, and even with all the help they got from scientific gentlemen the Government machines have not been the same success as machines made by private firms, which have knocked the Government machines out. This contemplated inspection of design is what I object to, and I ask that the Government should allow machines to be built and tried, and when they come forward, as firms will do, with machines ready, that the Government shall look at them and see whether they are safe from the public point of view.
The second point I would ask the right hon. Gentleman is, that the State shall not be allowed to hamper the industry by excessive inspection on the ground of the safety of the public—I do not mean after the machine is built, but during the construction of the machine. The risk of disaster must always be felt, and no regulation will ever get rid of that. We have seen in the case of ships, with all their wonderful watertight compartments, the "Titanic" sink. Commercial aviation is a commercial proposition, and if people are going to carry passengers in their machines they are going to have to pay if they kill people in those macines, and the right body to regulate and inspect machines is Lloyd's, and not the Government. The whole tiling comes down to a commercial proposition, and you will have to bring Lloyd's insurance people into it. If the right hon. Gentleman can give me
later assurances on those two points I think that there will not be very much opposition to this Bill.

Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: There is no doubt that this Bill is absolutely necessary, and one matter which is strongly in its favour is that it is only a temporary provision. It is too soon to allow the British public to be put at the mercy of every rash individual who chooses to go in for aeroplanes either for sport or for commercial purposes. This is not the first Bill to deal with safety, for we have had before one Bill in 1911 and another in 1913 dealing with safety.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: No.

Mr. DENNISS: There was the Air Navigation Bill of 1911, which was for the protection of the public—

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Have you read that Act?

Mr. DENNISS: Yes, every word of it. The other Act was in 1913 which brings under the Defence of the Realm Act the coastlines and territorial waters of the realm. This is not a Bill to legalise military flying because that has already most elaborate provision. The object of this Bill is to deal with commercial or civilian aircraft, and that being so, I look at this measure with a great deal of doubt and hesitation. It is perfectly right and proper that for the present at least pilots' licences should be given by the Government pilots and aircraft should be registered and certified, because there is no other body at present which is capable of performing these very important duties. The first two lines of the first Clause of the Bill are enough to inspire one with a great deal of doubt as to whether or not this Bill may not be used to crush the commercial use of aircraft altogether because it says:
It shall be lawful for the Secretary of State by Order to regulate aerial navigation over the British Islands and the territorial waters adjacent thereto, and in particular….
(a) the grant, suspension and revocation of licences to pilots and other persons engaged in the navigation of aircraft.
It is the most general Clause I have ever seen. It allows the Air Council, which is the authority under the Bill to stop all aircraft and flying in this country. It can prevent them going out of the country or coming in or flying over the country. That being the case unless these regulations are inspired by people who are thoroughly
in sympathy with the commercial aspects of the aircraft industry then I am afraid that industry must very much suffer. We remember well what happened in the case of the motor traffic. We remember how the first motor vehicles were not allowed to use the public roads unless they had a man in front of them with a red flag, and they were not to go over four miles an hour. That ought to be a warning to the House. That was the first Government idea as regards motor traffic, and it completely put England behind the Continent in the manufacture and development of motor traffic. What I am afraid of is that this Bill may do something like the same thing with regard to aircraft.
Regulations have already been made with regard to sending expeditions to India. First, they go to Karachi, and then to Delhi. This has been done entirely under military auspices. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will allow the aircraft industry to run a flight of aeroplanes to Australia from this country, or will he restrict them absolutely to military men and military pilots. An association with which I am connected is anxious to make a trial of flying from London to Australia. The route as far as Karachi has been mapped out by the Government. Then to Delhi, afterwards to Calcutta and Singapore, touching the islands of Java, landing at Port Darwin in Australia. Then east or west or directly south to Adelaide, following the telegraphic line, running directly north and south. I want to know whether the Air Council will reserve to themselves all the rights of experimental flying from the United Kingdom to the various Dependencies. That is a matter which they might kill entirely by regulation.

8.0.P.M.

I had some little experience in the early part of the War as to the way in which the War Office look upon aircraft. I had occasion in 1915 to call at the War Office to introduce to the Transport Department a Bosch magneto, and the man who could make them, and at that time they were very much needed by the British Army; in fact, the transport was crippled for want of them. I saw an officer in the War Department and he told me he thought he could get five hundred a week at the time. I pointed out to him that Mr. Churchill was proposing to have a fleet of a thousand aeroplanes to be sent over the big towns of Germany, and that was a very
intelligent anticipation of Mr. Churchill in 1915. "Oh," said the major at the head of the Department, "nothing of the kind. Aeroplanes are of no use at all, except perhaps for scouting." And he turned down the proposition altogether. He said, "We cannot give up making our motors for our transports in order to make aeroplanes." The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that he is not at the Air Ministry, but I hope that he does not know to whom I am referring, because I do not want him to know. That was the way in which, in 1915, I was met with regard to aircraft, and that sort of thing may happen in every Government Department. Therefore, while congratulating the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) upon his eloquent speech, and the way in which he developed this particular point, namely, the dead hand of bureaucracy upon progress in commerce, I should like to have some assurance from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he does not contemplate keeping that dead hand upon aircraft navigation for ever and ever, but that he will at the earliest possible moment turn it over to the civil authority. A great French flyer is contemplating making a flight from Paris to Australia, and, if any difficulty is put in our way by the War Office or Air Ministry, I am afraid that the French will be first in the field. I might call the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the report of the Aerial Transport Committee, at the end of which it says:
It is a matter of urgent necessity to establish a system of propaganda throughout the Empire in order to convince the whole nation of the vast importance and possibilities of aerial transport, and to familiarise the governments and local authorities with the subject. There is evidence of the initiation of such a system in every country.
Undoubtedly, Germany and France and America and other countries will leave us far behind if the dead hand of bureaucracy is permanently planted upon the industry. The greatest objection which I have to this Bill is that which I have mentioned before and which has been mentioned many times in connection with similar Bills. It is that these Regulations for all practical purposes are made without any power in this House of controlling them in any way. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) says that the ownership of the air is in the owner of the land. It is an ownership from the centre of the earth right up into the skies as far as you
can get. I very much question whether that is still the law. I am myself a lawyer, and I may say that I differ from him. We had a Bill in this House with regard to oil found under land, and it was very much questioned whether the owner of the land had any right in the oil. That question has never yet been settled. I dare say the same thing would occur with regard to the air. I live in a small place with a few fields round me, and I have within two or three miles of me the largest aeroplane station in England. They have been continually coming over my ground, flying so low that they wave to me below—a most dangerous thing to do—and looping the loop. I do not believe if I went to the Law Courts that they would grant me an injunction and say that I could prevent them flying over my ground. I see that the title of this Bill is the Aerial Navigation Bill. We talk about the Air Ministry and the Air Council. Why, therefore, have this awkward Greek word "aerial." I wish the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would consider whether it would not be better to give us a simpler word.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I need not say that I have no intention of opposing this Bill. On the contrary, I take the opportunity of welcoming it for the one reason that it concentrates in the hands of the Air Ministry the various powers dealing with air-craft which it had been suggested might possibly be diffused among various Departments of the State. I want to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Air Ministry one or two questions. Does the Bill give the Air Ministry the power required to enable it to undertake pioneer work in aerial navigation—the setting up of the aerial routes both in this country and in the Empire generally—which we suppose is going to be one of the chief duties of the civilian side of that Ministry's work? Secondly, is it not possible—this is rather a point that we may deal with in Committee—to limit the certification of aircraft to aircraft which are going to be used for public purposes, so that a private pilot will be at liberty to fly any aircraft? I say this because there will be a danger that unimaginative officials will not give either the encouragement or the scope to the private, adventurer which the progress of aerial navigation undoubtedly demands. It is said that there is a danger to the public, but it must be remembered that the danger primarily is to the pilot and pas-
senger in the machine rather than to the public, and we might suppose that alone would be a sufficient guarantee that no excessively dangerous experiments would be made. The hon Member spoke of us being powerless under this Bill. I am under the impression that the Orders mast be laid on the Table of this House and must remain on the Table for twenty-one days within which it will be competent for any Member to move an Address for the revocation or alteration of any one of them.

Mr. DENNISS: The hon. and gallant Member knows that it is quite useless in practice.

Captain BENN: The hon Gentleman will excuse me, but he is mistaken. On the contrary, this is exempted business, and we can go on debating an Address moved with regard to anyone of these Orders until the next morning. The right hon and gallant Gentleman in this Bill has at least given us the power to deal with the Orders when he brings them forward. The last Clause of the Bill says that the Act shall continue in force for one year. One would suppose that meant that the Act would expire at the end of the year, and that if it were not then renewed other legislation would be brought forward. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, however, that there is a contrivance called the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and I should like to have from him the assurance that we shall not find in the Schedule of that Bill which is practically undebated the name of this Aerial Navigation Bill. I wish to ask those questions, and in the meantime to say that under the powers that he is taking much may be done by the Ministry over which he presides for the progress of this great science.

General SEELY: I can only speak by leave of the House, but as briefly as possible I will answer the various points raised. We have considered the points advanced by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), and especially we have had in mind the recommendations of the Aerial Transport Committee, of which he was a very prominent member. The provisional Regulations which we shall draft, and which are the only ones to appear under this Bill, will in almost all respects follow the lines of those recommendations. Again, in addressing myself to all the hon. Members who have spoken, I would emphasise that this is an interim measure, and that we must later
have a larger measure, which will put in the form of law the whole of the arrangements for the regulation of flying in the same way as there are propel, regular Acts—as for instance, the Board of Trade Act—to regulate either land transport or sea transport. I would again emphasise that this is a Bill by which alone we are enabled to give facilities for private individuals to fly. Without it they cannot fly, and it is principally for this reason that I commend it to the House. The hon. Gentleman particularly asked a question as to certification. We propose that certification should be done daily by persons appointed by the manufacturers, with the approval of the Air Ministry. Thus you will not have perpetual inspection by Government Departments, which would involve an immense number of inspectors, or mean that the thing would not be properly done.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman mean that every machine is to be inspected and practically certified every day? Supposing there is a line of aeroplanes running from London to Manchester, would they have to be inspected daily?

General SEELY: Yes. The criticism made to me when I met the British Society of Aircraft Manufacturers was that the provision was hardly necessary, because, of course, every owner of aeroplanes must inspect them. I am sure it is a wise provision, and I also think it is wise to leave it to the manufacturers to make the inspection as part of their regular duty by persons approved by the Air Ministry. Subject to that, I believe it will work well. Those, I think, were the principal points which the hon. Gentleman put to me.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: There was the legal question about the right of flying over other people's land. What are you going to do about that?

General SEELY: I was going to deal with that in some general remarks with regard to the legal aspect in replying to several hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. By this Bill, which I hope will become an Act, we shall be able to do the things named in Clause 1, but that does not by any means include any of the things which we must do if we are to have a proper code of law for the air. They must be put in the larger Bill. The question of penalties for the forging of certificates, for instance, cannot be dealt with under this Bill. The
ordinary common and Statute law, as we know it, will have to be the law for the time being. If we were to attempt to make a code of law for the air, it would mean a very large Bill and involve long Debates. Therefore, this Bill only sets out to do that which I have described in my opening remarks, namely, to enable civilians to fly, with a minimum of interference on the part of the State consistent with the public safety.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley), the youngest Member of this House, made a speech to which I am sure we were all delighted to listen as coming from one who left a most distinguished regiment to fly over the Germans, and who flew as long as he could until he met with a sufficiently hard bang to force him to return to his other duties. We congratulate him on his escape and upon his return to this House. In his excellent speech, however, he did not take into account my opening remarks in which I laid emphasis on the necessity of avoiding bureaucratic control. I will reply to him and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Colonel Moore-Brabazon) at the same time by saying that the whole object of the Air Ministry, I can assure them, as long as I am there—and I know I can speak for my right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill)—will be to see that the State helps and does not hinder, that it does its utmost to encourage new designs of every kind, that it does not profess to be a grandmother in any sense, and that all restrictions possible shall be removed.
We are determined the State shall only endeavour to open the way to skill and energy. It will not try to hamper or thwart independence of thought or action on the part of those engaged. When I came across the Regulations drawn up in the ordinary form, in which, following the precedent in regard to land craft it laid down that aircraft should be examined as to its suitability and safety, I struck out the word "suitability," because it seemed to me that the State had nothing to do with that. If somebody proposes to fly from here to Australia we should be only too delighted to help them in every way consistently with the general safety. If they want to fly on a kind of machine entirely new to us which we may think ill-adapted for the purpose, we shall not stop them so long as we are satisfied that the machine is reasonably safe. We shall have
nothing more to say on that point. As to the activities of the Aircraft Ministry, we intend to give the fullest information in our power as to new discoveries, making, of course, exceptions in regard to military secrets, but the public will be at liberty to take out their own patents and keep their own secrets. That seems to be peculiarly the duty of the State in this entirely new form of locomotion.

Lieutenant Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: May they build machines without submitting designs to the Air Ministry?

General SEELY: Certainly. We shall only insist that they are reasonably safe, as is done in the case of ships at sea. We propose to follow exactly the precedent set in that case. If a man chooses to build a vessel, however fantastic in appearance, or design, if it is reasonably safe, the Board of Trade makes no objection. The State must do its duty to see that there is reasonable safety. There were three definite points put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Wedgwood Benn). The first was as to pioneer routes. The opening of pioneer routes is done by the military at the present time, and if the State is going to do it it will be the Royal Air Force which will take the duty. At the present time we can do what we please within the limits imposed by Parliament with military and naval aviation, and if the Treasury approve of the expenditure necessary for opening up new routes, say, from Cairo to Karachi, this Bill will not help us, but it will enable people to begin experimental flying.
With regard to certificates for machines which are not to carry passengers, I have been asked if everybody is to be entitled to break his own neck. I say undoubtedly he is so entitled. After all, the risk to those below is similar only to the risk people have of being run over by motor cars. I do not think it is necessary to require any form of inspection of machines to be flown by men themselves, nor is there any need that they should have certificates, as is requisite in the case of those who are going to carry passengers, goods and, it may be, mails. The principle that you must take care of yourself is a good one. We look forward to people doing in the future what they did in the early days of flying. They will really be pioneers. They will strike out entirely new lines,
making machines to their own designs—designs which all sorts of wise people may think to be useless and unsuitable for flying. Finally, I have been asked for a very definite pledge on a very technical point. I am very glad to give it. My hon. and gallant Friend wanted to be assured that this measure will not be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which is generally passed without debate. It shall not be put into that Bill, and I hope as I give this assurance the House will help me to pass the bigger Bill which we intend to present to Parliament and which will enable this Bill to become obsolete. I think I have answered all the questions put to me.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: There was a question with regard to liability for accidents. Are we going to do away with the common law question of negligence? Suppose I am killed by an aeroplane from above, will my executors have to establish negligence on the part of the aeroplanist, or would compensation be given merely because I was killed?

General SEELY: I put that point to the Attorney-General, and he was unable to answer it. I do not know how it stands. I think probably that negligence would have to be proved in the case of air accidents as in the case of land accidents. But that is merely my own obiter dictum. It is a long time since I was called to the Bar and I cannot claim that it is a sound opinion. I do not think this Bill will alter the position in that respect, but I will make a note of the point. It is a subject which must be included in the larger Bill which I shall bring in at a future date. If any hon. Members have any suggestions they would like to make on the general question and will send them to me in the course of the next few weeks, I shall be most happy to consider whether they come within the scope and intentions of the larger measure, and, of course, within the agreement for international flying. It is quite likely, this being a new Service, that there are points we may have overlooked. I do not know whether it would be reasonable to ask the House to take the Committee stage of this Bill tonight. I am entirely in the hands of the House, but, in view of the fact that we shall be discussing the larger Bill before very long, perhaps hon. Members might be not unwilling to accept this suggestion.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."—[General Seely.]

Capta in BENN: Is it proposed to take the Report stage to-day?

General SEELY: If we have the Committee stage, I think we might leave the Report stage over.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the Bill be not amended in Committee, there is no Report stage.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[General Seely.]

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been scribbling down a few Amendments while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, and I am quite ready to take the Committee stage now if he and the Clerk at the Table will assist me with my rather badly written Amendments. There are no particular Amendments I wish to propose, but I desire to raise a few points which one has not been able to mention in Debate. If the right hon. Gentleman will accept the spirit in which they will be put, I shall not oppose the taking of the Committee stage now.

General SEELY: I will certainly give every assistance in meeting the hastily-scribbled notes my hon. Friend has mentioned. I would not have suggested taking the Committee stage now but for the fact that all the matters which come up in the temporary Bill have been touched on in Debate. We might endeavour to get the Committee stage now, and take the Third Reading later if the House so desire.

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Regulate Aerial Navigation.)

(1) It shall be lawful for a Secretary of State by Order to regulate aerial navigation over the British Islands and the territorial waters adjacent thereto, and in particular, but without derogating from the generality of the above provision, he may by any such Order provide for—
(a) the grant, suspension, and revocation of licences to pilots and other persons engaged in the navigation of aircraft;
(b) the registration, identification, inspection, and certification of aircraft;
688
(c) the licensing, inspection, and regulation of aerodromes;
(d) the conditions under which aircraft may be used for carrying goods, mails, and passengers;
(e) the conditions under which goods, mails, and passengers may be imported and exported in aircraft into or from the British Islands, or from one of the British Islands to another.
(2) If any person contravenes or fails to comply with the provisions contained in any such Order he shall be guilty of an offence under the Aerial Navigation Act, 1911:
Provided that if proceedings are taken by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise for contravention of or failure to comply with any Regulation made under paragraph (e), the proceedings shall be deemed to be proceedings for the recovery of a penalty under the enactments relating to customs.
(3) Every Order made under this Section shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, but as soon as may be after it is made it shall be laid before each House of Parliament, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat after the Order has been so laid, praying that the Order or any part thereof may be annulled, His Majesty may annul the Order or part thereof, and it shall thenceforth be void without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there under or to the making of a new Order.
(4) The powers conferred by this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the powers conferred by the Aerial Navigation Acts, 1911 and 1913.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "State" ["a Secretary of State"], to insert the words,
with the approval of a Select or Grand Committee of the House of Commons.
The point I want to press is that from a constitutional point of view we ought to know a little more of these Regulations before the House parts with this Bill. I do not ask that the right hon. Gentleman should consent to refer the Bill to a Grand Committee, but would it not be possible, before the Report stage or before the Third Reading, to show some of us the Regulations? We really are giving a blank cheque to the Government to make any Regulations they like. However friendly we may be to the Government, however much we desire to help them, yet they ought to give us some undertaking that we shall see the Regulations before the House finally parts with the Bill.

General SEELY: I quite appreciate that my hon. Friend does not press this Amendment, because in its form it would be a rather novel procedure. The real point he
raises is whether the House cannot have some say in these Regulations before it finally parts with the Bill. I have the draft Regulations here. It would be a great convenience to get the Bill, in order to commence civilian flying. Would it not be well for me to ask hon. Members to take the Committee stage now, then for me to circulate the draft Regulations to those interested, and then to take the Third Reading? Those of us who have been many years in the House of Commons know that all sorts of pitfalls may be encountered. Any group of Members might object very much to this, that, or the other, and we might not be able to get the Bill through. I wish I could meet the wishes of my hon. Friends without losing the Bill. I am sure they appreciate, especially those of them who have been in previous Parliaments, that any Minister who wants to get a Bill for this purpose is likely to meet difficulties. Perhaps I could pass the draft Regulations round now, although I am afraid that would not give time for consideration. I am in the hands of the Committee, but I give my assurance that everything done under this Bill, and all that is proposed, are with the intention of giving the greatest possible latitude for civilian flying while insisting upon public safety. When the Regulations are laid my hon. Friends will have an opportunity of debating them outside the ordinary Rules of the House at any hour of the day or night. I respectfully suggest that it would be best to pass the Bill, then for me to lay the draft Regulations at the earliest possible moment, then by question and answer to elucidate doubtful points, and finally to accept my assurance that everything shall be done in this matter to help and not hinder.

Major Sir HENRY NORMAN: We are all desirous to help the Bill, which is evidently necessary. It is exceedingly drastic, but in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said and the spirit in which he approaches all of us to take a special interest in the air, we naturally desire to help him to the utmost of our power. At the same time, we do not like to let the Bill go entirely without any idea of some of the more detailed aspects of the Regulations. Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to circulate his Regulations among those specially interests, or to any Member who specially desires to see them, between the Committee stage and the Report stage? There will have to be a Report stage, because
there is one purely verbal alteration which I want to suggest, which I am quite sure will be immediately accepted, I do not think the circulation of the Regulations will involve any delay.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I suggest another way out of the difficulty, namely, that the right hon. Gentleman should circulate the Regulations to the executive of the Parliamentary Air Committee? It is only a voluntary Committee, but everybody interested in flying is a member of it, and we shall be glad to discuss the matter with the right hon. Gentleman.

Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman has already promised to accept one Amendment which necessitates a Report stage. May I remind him that although what he has said may be true of other Parliaments, this Parliament is a Parliament in itself, and that he has not been met by any form of obstruction. Our desire is to get the Bill, but we also desire to have an opportunity of considering it in detail, and, in particular, of considering the Orders to be made under it. I therefore suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should give us one or two Amendments—he has already indicated he is prepared to do that—and then let the Report stage be put down for another day. No one will obstruct the progress of the Bill. In the meantime perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would circulate these Orders he proposes to make to the Committee on Air, and also to the Air Force Committee, which comprises all Members of the House who have served in the Royal Air Force during the War.

General SEELY: I should certainly think the best course will be to accept the suggestion made by the hon. Member opposite, and all we have to do is to make quite sure that there is a Report stage and pass rapidly through the rest of the Bill so that we may carry it out. I think that will probably meet the wishes of everyone. I will circulate the proposed Regulations—of course, they are only proposed Regulations now—to both the Committees which are referred to, and, of course, to any hon. Members who desire to see them. Then at a later stage we shall come to the Report stage and shall be able to approach it with full knowledge of what is done. Even in this, the model Parliament, obstruction may possibly hereafter be not entirely unknown, and I appeal to all my hon. Friends interested
in the Air Force to help us to get it through the important stage of Third Reading when the time comes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. DENNISS: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "aerial" ["to regulate aerial navigation"], and insert instead thereof the word"air."

General SEELY: I entirely agree that the word "aerial" is a horrible word. It is so difficult to say. But at the same time it has been accepted for some time back as a proper term, and I cannot think of another. Air navigation, of course, has the objection that air is a substantive and not an adjective. My right hon. Friend tells me sea bathing has a substantive with it. It is perfectly possible that by the alteration of a title you may greatly inconvenience other possible words, but I will bear it in mind. If I can put it in on the Report stage I will. I share the hon. Member's objection to the term.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain BENN: I bog to move, at the end of Subsection (1. b), to add the words,
used for carrying passengers, goods, and mails.

General SEELY: That is certainly the intention, but it is a little dangerous to accept words at a moment's notice which may, of course, have the effect, if you are not careful, of prohibiting you from accepting others. I think if we could have the Amendment in these words, "especially those used for the carriage of passengers, goods, and mails," that would meet the case, and the House would have my assurance that that is the intention. Then we shall safeguard the State if it has to inspect at some other time for some other purpose.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: At the end of Subsection (1, b), insert the words,
especially those used for the carrying of passengers, goods, and mails."—[Captain Benn.]

Sir H. NORMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, e), after the word "goods" ["The condition under which goods"], to insert the word "and."
As this Sub-section reads it shows a rather improper use of the English language. I want to suggest that it should read as follows: "The conditions
under which goods and mails may be imported and exported and passengers transported."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: Leave out the words "and passengers."

After the word "exported," insert the words "and passengers transported."—[Sir H. Norman.]

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Extension of purpose of Air Council.)

The purposes of the Air Council shall include all matters connected with aerial navigation.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I wish to ask a question as to the present position of civil aviation and the Air Council. We saw the other day that General Sykes had been appointed to deal with civil aviation and had resigned his position as a general officer. May I ask, not offensively, under what authority the Government appointed anyone to deal with civil aviation before passing this Bill. I have looked very carefully through the three Acts of Parliament which have been passed dealing with the air in 1911, 1913 and 1917, and there is no power at all to appoint anyone to deal with civil aviation. The Act of 1917, which constituted the Air Council, is purely a military Act. The whole thing deals with the military position. I see General Sykes is receiving some remuneration for his services. I do not know how on earth it is done. Someone has said, "This is a very curious Parliament and we do very curious things." The Government has appointed this general officer to deal with a subject that he has no power to deal with under any Act of Parliament, and I assume they are paying a salary which they have no power to pay him at all. I should like a little information on that point. I am not quite sure how far the Air Council in its present form is the right body to deal with civil aviation. It is a purely military body, formed for military purposes and on a military basis, and you are going to put the whole control of civil aviation in this country—I am not using the term offensively—under a military autocracy. I do not think that is right. This Bill has come so suddenly and it is not being debated at any great length, but I think two Amendments ought to be made in this Clause. I think the words "the purposes of the Air Council shall
include all matters connected with aerial navigation" are a bit too wide. That power might include the manufacture of civil commercial aircraft and so forth. I think the words in the second line should be amended to include certification, inspection, and so forth. That would be ample to start with. Then I think there ought to be some civilian members on the Air Council. I would suggest a sub-section to the Clause to the effect that there should be civilian members attached to the Air Council to act only in connection with the question of civil aviation. The appointments would naturally be left entirely to the Government. I think the whole of the commercial side of aviation will feel rather seriously if they are put entirely in the hands of military officers. I have not the slightest word of complaint against the military officers of the Air Council, for whom I have the highest respect, but military officers do not always in a position of authority get on with the commercial world. I think it would be better that two or three members should be added to the Air Council for civilian purposes. Formally I move the omission of the Clause.

General SEELY: In regard to the first point raised, namely, that there was no power to appoint Major-General Sykes as a member of the Air Council, the answer is that there was power to appoint him to look after civil aviation. We were so legally advised on the subject, but there was not power to appoint him a member of the Council. This measure when it becomes an Act will give us power to have a member of the Council for civil aviation. That is the object of the Clause. I can assure my hon. Friend that the vigilant eye of the Treasury would certainly never have allowed a salaried post to be improvidently made. That is one of the things on which they do keep the tightest outlook and the tightest hand, as I have reason to know. I think there is no doubt that legal power resided in us to appoint a controller of civil aviation. This Clause will give the man responsible for civil aviation a seat on the Air Council. In regard to the merits of that appointment, I would say that we were all exceedingly glad when General Sykes took the position, and I think the aviation world in general will be glad. When General Trenchard, I think with universal acclamation, came back as head of the military and naval sides of the Royal
Air Force, and General Sykes was approached with a view to his taking the civilian side, at any rate for the present, all those whom I was privileged to consult wore unanimous in saying that with his peculiary alert brain, which has been dealing for many months with the very problems on which aerial navigation is concentrating itself, namely, long distance flying in the air, we had an ideal man. It is quite true he is a soldier, but he has been a great many things besides, and the fact that he is now at his own request ready to serve civil aviation by severing his connection with the Royal Air Force, except so far as he remains on the retired list, will be an indication to the aviation world, to aircraft manufacturers, flyers and others, that he is whole-heartedly devoted to the interests of civilian flying. The reason why a soldier was selected is that just for the moment practically everyone who is interested in flying, with a few exceptions, has joined either the Flying Corps or one or other branch of the Service, and with hardly an exception all the pilots belong to the Royal Air Force. Thus for the moment it is almost certain that you will find the best man within the ranks of the Royal Air Force of the Army or the Navy. That that will continue to be so I do not say. I should say it will not, but at present it is the case.
With regard to making the Council more civilian in character, perhaps my hon. Friend did not observe that we have a considerable number of civilians on the Air Council. I shall, I suppose, shortly be demobilised. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill) is already demobilised. A civilian, Lord Londonderry, who is a member of the Air Council, will represent the Department in the House of Lords. Then we have Sir Arthur Duckham, Sir James Stevenson and Sir John Hunter, the last still technically a member of the Council. Therefore, there is a large civilian element, and though some of these gentlemen are there specifically for the purpose of concluding contracts and generally winding-up the affairs of the War, one of them will certainly always remain, and I should think, as time goes on, it will probably be the case that the man to whom the destinies of civil aviation are confided will tend more and more to be a business man, a civilian, even though he may have served in the Royal Air Force. I hope that will satisfy my hon. Friend.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: There is also the question of the very wide scope of the Clause.

General SEELY: I have made a note of that, and I hope the hon. Member will not press the point. I can assure him that we have no intention of going into the aircraft manufacturing business, and if we ever attempted to do it, what I say now would be brought up against us and make the thing impossible, for a Ministerial pledge is a Ministerial pledge that has to be kept as long as the Government survives. To confine it rigidly to the points specified would be inconvenient. I can assure the Committee that we have no ulterior motive whatever in making the Clause so wide. It is not unprecedented in its wide nature. It is necessary that the Air Ministry should have the power to act to the best advantage in all matters connected with aerial navigation or transport We do not want to act in order to hamper the industry. On the contrary, as I have said more than once. But I think it is necessary that we should have the power whenever the occasion arises to make the necessary Regulations, that any other Government Department has, in regard to land or air transport.

Captain BENN: I cannot support the hon. Gentleman behind me in regard to this Clause, because I understand it is a Clause by which the Air Council seeks power not only to deal with all these aerial matters, but to prevent other Government Departments interfering. That seems to be an extremely desirable thing. The air is an element that must be treated as a whole, and it must be controlled as a whole, so far as the State is concerned, in the hands of one authority. I would point out, however, that the civilian has a very proper and well-grounded suspicion of military control. The names of the most successful machines during the War prove how much we owe to the civilian manufacturer. I have no objection to the appointment of this brilliant officer (General Sykes) to the position of head of civil aviation, but the right hon. Gentleman must remember that the Government has been so constructed that the whole of this Air Ministry is put in what we think is a subordinate position to the War Office, and that emphasises tenfold the suspicion that the public must have of the military element in the Ministry. I hope myself that so far from military predominance after the War, this Ministry,
which deals with the most progressive of sciences, will be kept in touch with the most progressive of civilian opinion.

Clause 3 (Short Title and Duration) agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 6.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE [RETURNING OFFICERS' EXPENSES].

Considered in Committee.

Resolved, "That it is expedient to authorise payment out of the Consolidated Fund of the charges of returning officers for Parliamentary elections."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).

Ordered, "That Mr. Archdale be a member of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms)."—[Col. Gibbs.]

The remaining Order was read and postponed.

HOUSING.

NOTICES TO QUIT.

Whereupon Mr. Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Sir A. YEO: I desire to call attention to a matter which is giving a great deal of concern to a class of the population who cannot very well air their grievances by a strike or a revolution. Next to the question of food, nothing troubles the people of this country more than the question of housing—what sort of houses are they going to live in, and when they get into them how long will they be permitted to stay there? I remember very well during the last two or three years in the previous Parliament how we tackled the question of the increase of rent, and what a stir the measure made in the House and in the
country. I am not in any way desirous of attacking the Government, but I do want them to act and act quickly. That will be the only way to satisfy people outside who are suffering from the tension of having eviction orders hanging over their heads. I am not here to attack the landlord, who has as much right to live as any Member of Parliament. I do not attack any of those who have invested their money in house property, but I do feel that this House does not yet realise the seriousness of the position in which thousands of people, who voted for us at the last election, are, owing to the fact that they are getting notices to quit and have no houses to go into. I have letters from several soldiers to-day, in which they say, "We have been released ten days; seven of these ten days we have spent in house-hunting, and we cannot find either houses or premises." Do you wonder at men who come back from France, after four and a half years, getting out of hand when they cannot find a place for their wives and families?
9.0 p.m.
In addition, these men, when they apply for houses, are told by the landlord, "We cannot take you because you have children." We shall eventually see in the new garden cities notices saying, "Anyone with children need not apply." I wonder very often whether the landlords of these properties were ever children in their lives, or whether they were simply dropped down from the skies? And this is at a time when the nation is dependent, more than it was ever dependent before in its history, in order that it may be rebuilt and remoulded, on the children of the day and on generations yet unborn. I ask the Government to take some speedy step to deal with the matter. Otherwise, amid all the industrial unrest in the country, they will be face to face with another kind of unrest, because these people will not tolerate being sat on as they are being at present. I have to-day a letter from a certain place, which the Minister who is to reply to-night on this matter can see for himself, in which the writer says:
I notice in the Press that the question of shortage of houses is going to be raised to-night. May I draw your attention to the fact that in this town alone over 300 tenants are under order of eviction.
One would not mind being evicted from some of these houses if people could get somewhere else to go to. That is the trouble all the time. I have also the case
of two men who were demobilised a fortnight ago coming home after four and a half years in France to find that the whole row of houses in which their families had lived had been condemned by the sanitary authority. Here are these men who have risked their lives and spent their energy in France come home to find their wives and families with every prospect of being turned into the street.
This is no fairy tale. There is no Member of this House who did not promise at the election that one of the things he would try to get done would be the re-housing of the people of this country. That letter is only one of scores of such letters that Members of this House are receiving. I notice that in many different districts landlords are selling houses over the heads of the tenants, or they are endeavouring to get them out by putting an increase of £30 a year on some of these houses. Not only are the residents of these houses which I have mentioned being called upon to pay increased rents, but even Members of this House are not exempt from the possibility of eviction. I know one Member of this House who has a very fine house, for which he has been paying £167 a year rent, who received a notice last week stating that another Member of this House was trying to buy the House and asking what arrangement could he make about getting out. Possibly it is only right that this kind of thing should go on, but if this House does not wake up to the fact that a housing scheme has got to be not merely a matter of promise but a matter of accomplished fact then we shall be up not only against industrial strikes in the commercial world, but landlords will go for their rent and will not get it. The sooner the better.
I say that this matter is more general than possibly the House cares to realise. I know for a fact that in my own district, poor though that district may appear to be, landlords are refusing to take tenants if they have got one or two children. That is a sore point which the Government will have to tackle and the country will have to face. After all, you cannot have children born in a field like cabbages, carrots, or potatoes. It is all very well to have promises from the Front Bench that they are considering the matter and that they hope that the Report will be speedily brought forward in order that the country may see something done. Let us have something done at once. Let the Government act and show that they mean
business and mean to redeem their pledges, if we are to have a happy and contented England. This country is only safe as long as its people are contented and happy, and it is only prosperous as long as its people are happy and contented. This country is only fit and worthy to live in so long as its people can get justice and equity from the House of Commons, in which they are supposed to be represented. It is a matter of indifference to me whether hon. Members laugh or smile or sneer. They can do what they like. I say that this question outside is a very serious one, and is not a matter to be laughed at or sneered at. I do not want hon. Members to imagine that there is any Member of this House possessed of all the virtues or alone conscious of the rights of the people. We have all our equal share of responsibility and power, and none of us can shirk our responsibility to the people. I want the House to realise that we are not here to play or dream; we have hard work to do. Let us shun not the struggle, however difficult the task may be. I know it may not be very pleasant for Members to put questions to members of the Government and to be told that the thing is being considered. I know that it is being considered, but the same thing applied to the Increase of Rent Act, when we were told from the Front Bench that our facts were not correct and could not be substantiated. The Ministers then in charge found to their dismay that the facts were correct. We are prepared to substantiate to-night every statement we make on this question of housing, which is next in importance to the question of the food of the people in this country. I have here a pile of letters from officers and soldiers, who ask that their names be not divulged, because of the positions they hold under the War Office. In those letters they say that week after week, district after district and hour after hour their wives have tried and cannot get houses.
I desire to render to the Government in this matter all the support in my power, and I have not the slightest wish to injure or hinder them in getting on with their work, but I raise this question because I feel it is a very serious one, and one which demands the immediate practical attention of the Department concerned. I would ask them to wake up and get into their stride, and show the country that our platform and programme are not mere
platitudes and idle words, and, if they do, we shall go a long way to undo a good deal of the unrest that is seething and is very deep and very sinister in more directions than one. I do not wonder at men sometimes seeing red. I have a letter here from an officer who after four and a half years in France comes home, and his wife and two children are unable to get apartments or a house, except they buy it. If this House does not care to realise this serious position, it will sooner or later have to do so. We have had a heritage handed down to us and we should make up our minds that the position we leave behind us is better than that which we found. I would ask the Minister in charge, whose whole-hearted sympathy is in accordance with the wishes of the House, to show to the people of the country that we do desire to house them properly and to give them every facility and opportunity for getting houses. The House must make up its mind that there must be some protection added to the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Act in order to save this wholesale eviction in London and in the provinces, which is staring thousands of middle class people in the face. If the Government does not take some steps speedily, then it will have to face more trouble than it can tackle.

Mr. ROWLANDS: The question which my hon. Friend has raised is, as he pointed out, one of great magnitude. I think His Majesty's Government must be rather sorry now that they were not able to bring in the Bill that was promised to myself over and over again dealing with one phase of this question. The magnitude of the housing question is realised we know by the Government and by everyone who has taken any interest in our social conditions. We are all aware that we are, roughly, five years behind in our building of houses. For the last five years there has not been anything approaching sufficient houses for the workers, and we have seen from many Reports that the shortage has reached hundreds of thousands, a shortage which ought to have been kept up under the ordinary condition of things. I should not be inaccurate I think in stating, and the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, that that shortage did not commence with the War alone, but had commenced five years previously. If you take the figures for the five years previous
to the outbreak of war you will find that the number of houses built was some 30 or 40 per cent. less than had been built previously. We fully realises that the Government is alive to the necessity of a big measure dealing with the housing question. We have had it explained over and over again, as for instance in the Gracious Speech from the Throne and in other quarters, and we know that the Local Government Board has been in communication with the local authorities throughout the country and inquired of them as to what is the amount of housing required in each particular locality. I believe the right hon. Gentleman's Department is in possession of a large number of returns from municipalities and urban and rural councils stating what they desire—that is the great question of housing. But what I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to to-night is not exactly that in connection with the big Bill, which must necessarily take some time to pass through this House and still more time before we get a large number of houses built. What I particularly desire to call the Government's attention to is this fact, that owing to the shortage in the quantity of houses there are a number of greedy landlords who are threatening to evict their tenants unless they purchase. I am not classifying the whole of them. Some people say they have been instigated to do it by their agents, and, if so, I repeat that never was more disastrous advice given by an agent to his superior. They are serving notices not only on small houses, but on large houses; indeed, the smaller houses are rather more free, as they come within the scope of the Act of 1915, but on houses which do not come within that limit they are serving notices to the effect that the tenants must clear out in March, or June, or September, unless they like to purchase the house, in which case they may remain. What are the terms upon which the purchase is to take place? It is to take place on the terms and conditions of the landlords, and I have instances of houses just outside the centre of London where the terms asked for on a moderate-sized house are at least some £200 more than the market value of that house.
What are the tenants; going to do? They cannot get other houses. I know instances that will arise in March where people have tried without success to get other houses, and apart from anything else it is a
great inconvenience to the smaller middle class people with their children going to school in a particular neighbourhood. These people will not voluntarily go outside their houses and put their goods and chattels on the wayside. They cannot be expected to do that, and, if not, the landlords will have to apply for ejectment orders, and you will have hundreds and hundreds of these ejectment orders. I know of cases where they are already prepared to meet those notices when they are served upon them, and they intend to fight, and while I am not a lawyer I can say that they hope to be able to get some relief under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act. That is a case that has to be dealt with totally apart from the question of the great housing scheme for building. I do not know that it can be met entirely, but still it would give some relief if there was an extension of the amount of rent now confined in the Act of 1915. I think the Government will have to consider whether they cannot devise some means whereby an appeal can be made as to whether it is just that the tenant who is paying his rent and keeping up all his engagements to his landlord should be turned out. This is not a case that concerns London alone. I have an enormous amount of correspondence over the questions I was asking last autumn about repairs and dilapidations, and I hold in my hand at tins present time, amongst many other letters, one from Cambridge, so that it is not confined to London. Mixed up with this question is the other question as to whether relief cannot be given to some of the people who have leases with regard to being called upon to carry out their covenants. We are not out of the War yet. I wish we were, but even if we were it would be some little time before materials and labour could come down to the level that we require. It was on that point that the Government promised—and did try. I believe, but the time was not sufficient—to bring in in the autumn of last year a measure giving relief to those people. I could show to the right hon. Gentleman sheaves of cases which have been brought to my notice in reply to my letters to the Press and to my questions in this House at that time, and although I do not want to use violent language the case is so strong and so serious that I am sure it will appeal to my right hon. Friend, and that he will put as strongly and as urgently as he can before his colleagues
the necessity of doing something and not waiting for the grand housing scheme before they meet this difficulty. It arose mainly with regard to the short leases in the autumn, but it has arisen in the last few months over this question of "go out" or "buy"—that is, the placing of a revolver at the head of the tenant by the landlord. I put these facts before the right hon. Gentleman and ask him to impress upon his colleagues, busy as they may be in other directions, the necessity of dealing at once with this grave and serious problem.

Mr. HAYDAY: I am quite unfamiliar with the procedure, and I hope any transgression on my part will be overlooked. I am in rather a fog as to the time this Debate can last, but if there is time at my disposal I will claim the indulgence of the House to urge upon the Government the very grave necessity of extending the protection given to those under the Rent and Mortgages Act. This problem in itself is one that affects very seriously the whole community, and more particularly those who happen to be fortunate enough to be the parents of large families. I speak with a good deal of experience in that direction, being born in London, and a member of a family of sixteen, my wife being a member of a family of fifteen, myself being the proud father of sixteen. Therefore, I think I may presume to talk upon the difficulties of the housing question. The difficulties have been personal as well, because I find that I very often must resort to subterfuges to get a reference of any kind at all. But, quite beyond that, during the course of this unfortunate War, I myself have been the subject of notice to quit, and I have very often asked myself what really are the provisions made for families who suffer eviction without having any homestead to go to. I find usually that the first symptoms of the grave social problem commence—overcrowding in different habitations. I suggest that the bad housing, because of the insufficient supply of sanitary dwellings, is largely responsible for the early bad environment and for the growth of rather a narrow, cramped and bad conception of what life is and of what life should be. I attribute, rightly or wrongly, to the insufficient supply of houses and to the lack of attention in making these houses sanitary, all the grave fear and doubt as to how long one is to be permitted to live in the house and
occupy the home in order to welcome back the lads whom we have sent to defend this kind of property for the property owner who so freely gives notice to quit. I rather feel that with this bad early environment you can expect to find nothing else but the seedlings and a fomenting ground for all such things as Bolshevism, and for epidemic diseases, such as the the recent very serious visitation of influenza. I really do gravely express the opinion that the preventable epidemic diseases are more virulent because of the bad and indifferent housing in this country of ours. There is no sadder sight for anyone with a healthy mind, and no sadder sound can fall upon the ears of those who listen than to hear coming from some innocent baby lips some vulgar expression, which is the first articulation they have learned because of the herding together and the bad environment in the narrow courts and alleyways of the country. You are going to accentuate that unless the Government does something immediately. Already large numbers of people throughout the provinces have had served upon them three months' notice to quit. The notice is to expire at the end of March, and they are wondering what is going to become of them. There is no provision at all, if you go into the poorer quarters and if you go into the slum areas. A friend of mine told me of seven houses, with only three rooms in each house, and with just one public sanitary convenience for the whole of the seven houses, harbouring one hundred and eleven persons—children and adults.
I myself rather dread the end of March coming for fear that I shall be a victim again of three months' notice to quit. It is no use the landlords blaming their agents and saying that the agents have preferred this advice to them. The men who went from these homes and left their wives and children behind; the parents who sent their sons did so in defence of the homeland and of the homes of England. They did so in defence of the womankind, not expecting that the Government, by its inactivity, was going to make all their fighting in vain and to hand their womenfolk over to the greed of the landlord who with all his avaricious desires, will sell the house over the head of the tenant, no matter how long he has regularly paid his rent, or else will give him the alternative, when the period of notice expires, of continuing by paying an increased rent. I do urge, with all the
power of which I am capable, that the Government should not only extend the operations of the Rent and Mortgages Act, but that they should secure a return from the local health authorities as to the number of visitations for the purposes of sanitary inspections which have taken place and as to the state of the existing property. I can assure, the House that very few of the landlords have spent a penny-piece during the whole of the War period on property which, as my friends in London would say, has to have seven or eight layers of wallpaper to keep the partition in an upright condition; and they have neglected even any repairs of the general sanitary arrangements of the House. I would urge that we should have some Return, showing not only the shortage and what schemes there are for making good that shortage, but also what is the state of the existing property. You cannot judge your shortage of houses on the number you have at present standing. Fully one-half of these ought to be pulled down, because they are danger spots where epidemic disease strengthens and becomes virulent, to the sad loss of many throughout our country. I would ask the Government to take this matter in hand, otherwise I cannot see how you can logically, as Englishmen, advise against organised opposition to eviction. If you once have that state of organised opposition to eviction you are going to have a spirit of unrest far different from that of to-day, because these men will say, "We have fought for our homeland and our country; we are now going to fight for the right to live whilst we pay rent in the homes in which we have lived for so many years."

The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. Addison): It is obvious to all that there are really two questions raised by the speeches we have heard to-night. One is that dealt with by the Member for West Nottingham in a very direct and informing way, as to the general effects of the housing scarcity. I agree with every word he said as to the evil effects of the existing deplorable state of affairs in many places. The other point, referred to by the hon. Member for Poplar, of course brings us face to face with a very big issue, which is quite other than housing, namely, as to how far we ought to interfere with the rights of an individual in respect of the disposal of his own property, because, as the hon. Member is aware, it is not limited to
houses. For example, a very large amount of land has changed hands during the past couple of years, and in a very large number of cases the tenants have purchased it, having been given the first option because they wished to remain the tenants. It is exactly parallel with the case of the man with the £160 a year house which is to be sold, who, if he is to continue to be the tenant, must buy it himself. It is exactly a parallel case, and, as the hon. Member for Poplar suggests, this extends even to the £160 a year house. He will see it—in fact, he said himself that he came face to face with the proposition there. He told us that one Member of this House was in treaty—I understood him to say—for buying the house now inhabited by another Member of this House, or something of that sort. He did not quire undertake to say that he was accepting the responsibility of preventing him buying it. That is the question with which you are really confronted, and which is quite other than that of the Restriction of Rent and Mortgages Act. [An Hon. Member: Is it not profiteering?"] It is profiteering; there is no doubt about that. It is taking advantage of the existing housing scarcity. On that point, I would say that proposals are at this moment being considered by us, and we will report to the House what the decision of the Government is on the particular points raised by the hon. Member for Poplar as soon as possible.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman do it before the 25th March?

Dr. ADDISON: Oh, yes; before that! With reference, however, to the continuance in some other form, or in a modified form, of the Restriction of Rent Act, definite proposals for that also are being prepared, and I have no doubt we shall be able to announce them also to the House very shortly. But the whole of this arises essentially from the scarcity of houses. The case so well known to all of us of people being hard pressed to find accommodation arises because of the scarcity of houses. During the War there has been little building. Materials have been dear and diverted to other purposes, and permits have not been allowed, and all the rest of it. That has only accentuated what was previously a shortage. The hon. Member for Poplar quite rightly said that he expected the Government to make good its pledges.
I accept that expectation in the letter and in the spirit. We mean to do so. I may say that last week we issued to local authorities our scheme of finance with reference to the general housing provisions, and if the hon. Member has had an opportunity of looking at that proposal, I think he will have seen it does not err either on the side of indefiniteness or niggardliness, because we look to the authority to seek to make good by various ways the shortage in housing accommodation or the unsatisfactory character of housing accommodation in their area, and we undertake for a term of years that is set out in the circular, that the charge falling upon them of any approved arrangements shall not exceed the proceeds of a penny rate. It is quite evident that in any rural district that means a very large measure of assistance. In wealthy areas it would not mean quite so much where the yield of a penny rate is a big figure. However, throughout the length and breadth of the country, it would mean a large and generous State contribution to houses, and it is very definite and precise. Every authority now knows where it is. [An Hon. Member: "Does it extend to Ireland?"] No; the proposal I sent out extends to England and Wales. Another sent out by my right hon. Friend applies to Scotland, and the Irish Secretary is in charge of the matter as it relates to Ireland.

Mr. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how far he has progressed?

Dr. ADDISON: I am afraid I cannot. The hon. Gentleman must ask that question of my right hon. Friend. I know he is working at it, though he has not had the same opportunity that we have to devote the amount of time to dealing with the question. So far as the scheme of State assistance is concerned, it is quite evident the proposals already sent out are generous and definite, and I believe they are being widely taken up by local authorities. One hon. Gentleman pointed out that there is a vast number of houses verging on the dilapidated which are still occupied, and that closing orders are not issued, because everybody knows that if they were issued there would be nowhere else for the unfortunate tenants to go. We have got to deal with the unsatisfactory houses, and it is quite clear that no adequate provision for the housing shortage can wholly be made good by the provision
of new houses. You must make the best also of what houses you have got that are worth making anything of, and I can only say that proposals dealing adequately with that matter will be found in the Bill which we hope to present to the House in a very short time. I may say, too, without anticipating that measure, that several of the matters mentioned to-night will be found in the Bill, and I am quite sure of this, that when the House sees it they will not say we are not living up to our pledges. It will be found to be very drastic, and it will be intended to provide houses. I entirely agree with the hon. Member that we have talked about houses long enough, and that what we want to see is some bricks going up. Last week, for example, we placed orders in advance for 300,000,000 bricks in connection with housing schemes, and let me say here, because it affects the general question of unemployment, that it is not intended that the Government is going to monopolise all the bricks and all the building material. We must give a chance to other builders to obtain the necessary material, if they like to do so, for housing.
There are many points raised by hon. Members in their remarks which relate to a general discussion on the housing provisions rather than the limited point raised by the hon. Member for Poplar, and it would not be proper, perhaps, at this time, on a Motion for the Adjournment, to go into them. I wish it were, because I may say we are hard at work at it, and we mean business in this matter. But the House will recognise, I am sure, that the preparation and the passing of plans, the elaboration of brickyards, the supply of materials, and the hundred and one practical questions to be dealt with before you can begin to build a house are not matters you can deal with in the course of a week. I only give one specific instance as showing the kind of steps we are taking. We have surveyed every brickyard in the country. We have sent in a return of all the men who are wanted to start these brickyards, and where they are short of machinery. For all these men that are wanted we have applied to the Demobilisation Department, and I may say we are making ourselves a continual nuisance to that Department [An Hon. Member: "It is necessary."], in order to get these men to the brickyards. Then we have divided the country in respect of the priority of material and the production of housing
material into eleven convenient areas, where you can deal with it in a practical fashion in the centre of production. We have ordered in advance a very large number, although not so many as we shall require in the near future, of bricks and other materials for the provision of houses. I am sure practical men in the House know perfectly well that with the present condition of the brickyards, with men scattered all over the earth on military service, and the machinery in its present condition, it is bound to take time before we can get matters started even with the best will in the world. I am sure, however, the House will give us credit when they see that we are really trying. I believe that when hon. Members see our housing proposals in the form of the new Housing Bill they will acquit us of any desire or disposition to lack earnestness or zeal to proceed with this very important national work.

Sir A. YEO: Would I be in order, Mr. Speaker, in asking the right hon. Gentleman if he will receive tome of the correspondence which has been talked about?

Dr. ADDISON: I should really like my hon. Friend to epitomise it for me.

Mr. G. THORNE: I do not want to refer to the general subject, but to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. In his remarks he stated that the result of certain matters which are now under consideration would be stated to the House "as soon as possible." I would invite him to be a little more precise as to what he means by "as soon as possible." What has been said to-night on the part of every Member who has spoken is perfectly true as to the intense anxiety on this question. It would be a very great satisfaction to all concerned if, instead of saying "as soon as possible," the right hon. Gentleman could be more precise so that we may expect the result to come within a certain definite period. If the right hon Gentleman can satisfy us on this point we shall all be very pleased.

UNEMPLOYMENT DONATION (IRELAND).

Mr. DEVLIN: I am glad that the opportunity of this Adjournment enables me to mention a very vital matter that arises out of Question Time to-day. I was thunderstruck to hear the answer which the Minister of Labour gave in reply to a question from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridge Uni-
versity. In that answer he declared that practically two-thirds of the unemployment allowance to workmen out of work in Ireland was to be withdrawn. I am not going to enter into the question as to the financial morality of the out-of-work unemployment grant. The Government having made up their minds to make Grants for unemployment to the workers in these islands—Ireland included—not by any declaration of policy, or because of any reasons stated to the House, stand up here in the person of their representative and in an answer declare that unemployed Irishmen are to be robbed of this constitutional right. This is one of the most scandalous things that has ever occurred in this country. Either it was a good thing or it was a bad thing to make those Grants. If it was a good thing they should have been continued; if it was bad why were they given? I know the reason why these Grants are to be withdrawn. There has been a vile conspiracy on the part of a number of wealthy reactionaries in this House and out of it to prevent these Grants being given to the unemployed of Ireland. A more anti-unionist purpose was never known in the history of this House than to turn round and tell us that the reason these Grants are being withdrawn is because Ireland is different to this country, and different to Scotland. In other words, all your legislation and administration that is evil is to be forced upon Ireland, and any financial legislative, or administrative advantages that can be given to this country are to be withdrawn in Ireland. I am not at all surprised that this action has taken place because it is only one of the countless instances of the kind that has occurred; though it is one of the most scandalous and barefaced transactions which we have ever heard from a scandalous and barefaced ministerial bench.
It is done by a Labour Member, by a gentleman who represents democracy. He does not examine or test the value of the question involved. Because he has been blackmailed into it by hon. Gentlemen on those Benches opposite he stands up in this House and declares that Ireland is not to get her share of the financial advantages involved in the matter. One would imagine, in the consideration of a matter of this sort that we in Ireland were a race of beggars, that we are asking money from you. Nothing of the sort.
The revenue of Ireland this year is £15,000,000 over Irish expenditure. You are actualy collaring £15,000,000 and you refuse to Ireland benefits that are given to this country and to Scotland! No wonder the people have ceased to have any faith whatever in this Parliament, and the hon. Gentlemen on those. Benches opposite will not hear the last of this question. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea (Sir. A. Mond), who is well known for his democratic instincts and his love of justice for Ireland, in the old democratic days, kindly to send for the Labour Minister, so that we may have an opportunity of securing from him some justification for the action which he has taken, some justification that can be given, not
by question and answer, but on an occasion of this character, which is one of the few that offer themselves for dealing with a matter of this sort. I put it to English Members: Is it any wonder that the people of Ireland want to get clear of this Parliament altogether? No housing. No reconstruction. No demobilisation. No solution of labour problems, but an attempt to steal this miserable pittance to which Ireland, because of her association with you, is entitled to, and that is given to the unemployed workers in Ireland. All I have to say, in conclusion, is this: Instead of facing Cabinet Ministers, I am standing before a den of thieves.

Adjourned accordingly at Seven minutes before Ten o'clock.